Category Archives: Principles of Hadith

اصول محدثین ضعیف حدیث “تلقی بلقبول” کے سبب صحیح کا حکم رکھتی ہے

اصول_محدثین : ضعیف حدیث “تلقی بلقبول” کے سبب صحیح کا حکم رکھتی ہے:
مسائل کا ایک اہم مآخد “(علماء کا) اجماع” اور اس بات پر محدثین کی تائید:

قرآن-و-سنّت کے احکام میں “نسخ” کا احتمال ہوتا ہے کہ وہ منسوخ ہے یا نہیں ہے.
[کما قال امام الغزالی رح – المستصفى مع مسلم الثبوت:٣/٣٩٢؛ و کما قال امام ابن_تیمیہ رح – مجموع الفتاویٰ:٢٨/١١٢]

جیسے قرآن میں ارشاد ہے:

مَا نَنۡسَخۡ مِنۡ اٰیَۃٍ اَوۡ نُنۡسِہَا نَاۡتِ بِخَیۡرٍ مِّنۡہَاۤ اَوۡ مِثۡلِہَا ؕ اَلَمۡتَعۡلَمۡ اَنَّ اللّٰہَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ قَدِیۡرٌ (٢/البقرہ:١٠٦)

“جو بھی کوئی آیت ہم منسوخ کرتے ہیں، یا اسے (ذہنوں سے) بھلا دیتے ہیں، تو ہم لے آتے ہیں اس سے کوئی بہتر آیت، یا اسی جیسی، بیشک اللہ ہرچیز پر پوری قدرت رکھتا ہے”.(اس آیت کی تفسیر ضرور پڑھیے)

مگر “اجماع” میں نسخ کا احتمال نہیں ہوتا اور وہ معصوم ہوتا ہے. [تفسیر_ابن_کثیر، سورہ نساء، آیت : ١١٥؛صحيح البخاري » كِتَاب الِاعْتِصَامِ بِالْكِتَابِ وَالسُّنَّةِ » بَاب قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى وَكَذَلِكَ جَعَلْنَاكُمْ أُمَّةً وَسَطًا (البقرہ :١٤٣) وَمَا أَمَرَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِلُزُومِ الْجَمَاعَةِ وَهُمْ أَهْلُ الْعِلْمِ =

ترجمہ: صحیح بخاری:جلد سوم: کتاب اور سنت کو مضبوطی سے پکڑنے کا بیان : اللہ تعالیٰ کا قول کہ ہم نے اسی طرح تم کو بیچ کی امت بنایا۔ (البقرہ:١٤٣) اور اس کے متعلق کہ رسول الله صلے الله علیہ وسلم نے جماعت کو لازم پکڑنے کا حکم فرمایا اور آپکی مراد جماعت سے اہل_علم کی جماعت تھی.
؛فاتح الباری، لامام ابن_حجر: ١٣/٣١٢]

اور (اسی طرح) امام نووی رح اپنے شیخ حافظ ابو عمرو سے مروی ہیں:

“الأمة في إجماعها معصومة من الخطاء” يعني امت اجماع میں خطا سے معصوم ہوا کرتی ہے [مقدمہ صحیح مسلم: صفحه# ١٤]

اور مشھور ائمہ_محدثین رح جیسے شافعی، بخاری، ترمذی، سیوطی، سخاوی، شوکانی وغیرہ (رحمہ الله علیھم اجمعین) نے اس اصول کا تعین کیا ہے کہ عملی طریقوں کا انحصار (دارومدار) تعامل_امت (اتفاق-و-اجماع سے امت کے جاری عمل پر) ہے. جب امت کا عمل کسی حدیث پر جاری ہو، اگرچہ وہ ضعیف ہو، تو اس کی سند پر بحث کی ضرورت نہیں. یعنی جس ضعیف حدیث پر بھی تعامل_امت (اتفاق-و-اجماع سے امت کا جاری عمل) ہو، تو اس حدیث کو مانا جائیگا، اگرچہ ضعیف ہو.[المعجم الصغیر لطبرانی: باب التحفة المرضية في حل مشكلات الحديثية، ٢/١٧٧-١٩٩]

قال ابن عبد البر في الاستذكار لما حكي عن الترمذي ان البخاري صحح حديث البحر “هو الطهور ماؤه” و أهل الحديث لا يصححون مثل اسناده لكن الحديث عندي صحيح لان العلماء تلقوه بالقبول.[تدريب الراوي : ٢٩]

ترجمة: علامة ابن عبد البر “الاستذكار” میں یہ بات امام ترمذی رح سے نقل کرتے ہوۓ فرماتے ہیں کہ امام بخاری رح (اس) حدیث_بحر “ھو الطھور ماوه” کو صحیح کہتے ہیں، حالانکہ محدثین اس جیسی سند (والی حدیث) کو صحیح نہیں کہتے لیکن حدیث میرے (ابن عبدالبر کے) نزدیک صحیح ہے 
——————————–
حافظ ابن حجر عسقلانی (شافعی) رح نے فرمایا:

ومن جملة صفات القبول التي لم يعترض شيخنا الحفيظ يعنى زين الدين العراقي أين يتفق العلماء على العمل بمدلول حديث فانما يقبل حتى يعمل به وقد صرح بذلك جماعة من أئمة الأصول.

ترجمة:…منجملہ (صحت حدیث کی) صفات_قبولیت میں سے ایک وہ بھی جس کی طرف ہمارے شیخ یعنی زین الدین العراقی نے تعرض کیا ہے وہ یہ ہے کہ علماء مدلول_حدیث پر عمل کرنے میں متفق ہوجائیں، پس اس حدیث کو قبول کرلیا جائیگا، یہاں تک کہ اس پر عمل واجب ہوگا، اس بات کی تصریح کی ہے علماء_اصول کی ایک جماعت نے. (المصاح على نكت أبن الصلاح)

——————————–
دو سو کے قریب کتب کے مصنف محدث، فقیہ، اصولی، مؤرخ علامہ سخاوی رح لکھتے ہیں:

“وكذا إذا تلقت الأمة الضيف بالقبول يعمل به الصحيح حتى أنه ينزل منزلة المتواتر”

ترجمة: اسی طرح جب امت ضعیف حدیث کو قبول کرلے تو اس کے ساتھ صحیح والا معاملہ کیا جائیگا.حتیٰ کہ وہ متواتر کے درجہ میں ہوجائیگی.
آگے لکھتے ہیں:

“ولهذا قال الشافعي رحمة الله في حديث “لا وصية الوارث” أنه لا يثبت أهل الحديث ولكن العامة تلقته بالقبول وعملو به حتى جعلوه ناسخا لاية الوصية”

ترجمہ: اسی وجہ سے امام شافعی رح (اس) حدیث “لا وصية لوارث” کے مطلق فرماتے ہیں کہ محدثین اسے صحیح نہیں قرار دیتے لیکن جمہور علماء نے اس کو قبول کیا ہے اور اس پر عمل کیا ہے حتیٰ کہ اس کو آیت_وصیت کے لئے ناسخ بنادیا.[فتح المغيث بشعره ألفية الحديث: ص # ١٢٠]
—————————–

٦٠٠ کے قریب کتب کے مصنف علامہ جلال الدین السیوطی (الشافعی) رح لکھتے ہیں:

“قال بعضھم يحكم للحديث بالصحة إذا تلقاه الناس بالقبول وإن لم يكن له أسناد صحيح.[تدريب الراوي: صفحة # ٢٩

ترجمہ: بعض محدثین فرماتے ہیں کہ حدیث پر صحت (صحیح ہونے) کا حکم لگا دیا جاۓ گا جب امت نے اسے قبول کرلیا ہو اگرچہ اس کی سند صحیح نہ بھی ہو.

المقبول ما تلقاه العلماء بالقبول وإن لم يكن له أسناد صحيح،[شرح نظم الدرر المسمى بالبحر الذي ذخر

ترجمہ: مقبول وہ حدیث ہے جسے علماء قبول کرلیں اگرچہ اس کی سند صحیح نہ بھی ہو.

قال ابن السمعاني وقم يدل لتضمنه تلقيهم له بالقبول. [تدريب الراوي : ١٧٢]

ترجمة: ابن سمعاني اور ایک جماعت یہ کہتی ہے کہ حدیث کے موافق اجماع کا ہونا یہ حدیث کی صحت پر دلالت کرتا ہے اس حدیث کے اس بات کو متضمن ہونے کی وجہ سے کہ اس کو تلقی بلقبول حاصل ہے.

وصحح الآمدي وغيره من الاصوليين إنه حكم بذلك.[تدريب الراوي: ١٧١]

ترجمہ: (علم کا کسی حدیث پر عمل یا دلیل لیتے فتویٰ دینے کی وجہ سے) آمدی اور ان کے علاوہ دیگر اصولیین نے اس بات کو صحیح قرار دیا ہے کہ اس حدیث پر صحت کا حکم لگایا جاۓ گا.

قال (ابن عبدالبر) في التمهيد روي جابر عن النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم الدينار أربعة و عشرون قيراطا، قال وفي قول جماعة العلماء و إجماع الناس على معناه غني عن الاسناد فيه.[تدريب الراوي: ٢٩]

ترجمہ: ابن عبدالبر “التمہید” میں فرماتے ہیں کہ حضرت جابر (رضی الله عنہ) نے نبی (صلی الله علیہ وسلم) سے روایت کی “دینار چوبیس قیراط کا ہے” فرمایا: جماعت_علماء کا قول اور لوگوں کا اس کے معنا پر اجماع اس کی سند سے مستغنی کردیتا ہے.
—————————-

علامة ابن مرعي ألشبرخيتي المالكي رح

“ومحل كونه لايعمل بالضعيف في الأحكام ما لم يكن تلقته الناس بالقبول فان كان كذلك تعين وصار حجة يعمل به في الاحكام وغيرها.[شرح الأربعين النووي]

ترجمة: اس بات کا محل کہ ضعیف حدیث پر احکام میں عمل نہیں کیا جاتا یہ ہے کہ اس کو تلقی بلقبول حاصل نہ ہو، اگر اسے تلقی بلقبول حاصل ہوجاۓ تو وہ حدیث متعین ہوجاۓ گی اور حجت ہوجاۓ گی اور احکام وغیرہ میں اس پر عمل کیا جاۓگا.
—————————–

اہل_ظواہر (غیر مقلد) کے پیشوا قاضی شوکانی (زیدی شیعہ) لکھتے ہیں:

ثم حكم أبن عبدالبر مع ذلك بصحته لتقي بالعلماء له بالقبول فرده من حيث الأسناد وقبله من حيث المعنى وقد حكم بصحته جملة من الحديث لاتبلغ درجة هذا ولا تقاربه.[نيل الأوطار: ١/١٨]

ترجمہ: پھر ابن عبدالبر رح نے باوجود (ضعف سند کے) اس کی صحت (صحیح ہونے) کا حکم لگایا ہے، علماء کے اس کو قبول کرلینے کی وجہ سے، پس رد کیا ہے اس کو سند کے اعتبار سے اور قبول کیا ہے اس کو معنا(مضمون) کے اعتبار سے، اور حکم لگایا ہے ایسی بعض احادیث پر جو اس درجہ تک نہیں پہنچتی بلکہ اس کے قریب بھی نہیں پہنچتیں.

اتفق أهل الحديث على ضعف هذه الزيادة لكن قد وقع الإجماع على مضمونها.[الدراري المضية شرح الدرر البهية؛ الروضة الندية شرح الدرر البهية في صفحة ٥، مطبوعه دار الجليل بيروت لبنان]

ترجمہ: محدثین اس زیادتی (اضافہ) کہ ضعف (کمزوری) پر متفق ہیں لیکن اس کے مضمون (معنا) پر اجماع منعقد ہے. (فتاویٰ علماۓ حدیث : ٧/٧٣ ; فتاویٰ غزنویہ :١/٢٠٦)
—————————

امام ابن_تیمیہ (الحنبلی) رح(المتوفي ٧٤٨ھ:
هذا حديث صحيح متفق على صحته تلقته الامة بالقبول والتصديق مع انه من غرائب الصحيح.[فتاوى إبن تيمية:١٨/٢٤٨]

ترجمہ: یہ حدیث (صحیح بخاری کی “انما الاعمال بالنیات”) صحیح ہے (کیونکہ) اس کی صحت پر اتفاق ہے، امت نے اسے قبول کیا ہے اور تصدیق کی ہے، باوجود اس کے کہ وہ صحیح (بخاری) کی غریب حدیث میں سے ہے.

—————————

علامہ ابن القیم الجوزی (الحنبلی) رح لکھتے ہیں:
على ان أهل العلم قد نقلوه واحتجوا به فوقفنا بذلك على صحته كما وفقنا على صحة قول رسول الله (صلي الله عليه وسلم) “لاوصية لوارث” وقوله في البحر “هو الطهور ماؤه و حل الميتة” وقوله “إذا إختلف المتبايعان في الثمن والسلعة قائمة فحالفا وتر ادا البيع” وقوله “الدية على العاقلة” وان كانت هذا الأحاديث لا ثبتت من جهة الإسناد ولكن لما تلقته الكافة عن الكافة غنوا بصحتها عندهم عن طلب الأسناد لها فكذلك حديث معاذ (رضي الله عنه) لما احتجوا جميعا غنوا عن طلب الإسناد له.[أعلام الموقعين:١/١٥٥، مطبوعه مكة المكرمة]

ترجمہ: مزید یہ کہ اہل_علم نے اسے نقل کیا ہے اور اس سے استدلال کیا ہے. پس علم ہوگیا ہمیں اس بات کا کہ یہ حدیث ان کے نزدیک صحیح ہے. جیسا کہ ہمیں معلوم ہوا رسول الله صلی الله علیہ وسلم کے قول “لاوصية لوارث”، اور آپ (صلی الله علیہ وسلم) کے فرمان سمندر کے بارے میں “هو الطهور ماؤه و الحل الميتة”، اور آپ (صلی الله علیہ وسلم) کے فرمان “إذا إختلف المتبايعان في الثمن والسلعة قائمة فحالفا وتر ادا البيع” اور آپ (صلی الله علیہ وسلم) کے فرمان “الدية على العاقلة” کی صحت کا. اگرچہ یہ احادیث (صحیح) سند کے ساتھ ثابت نہیں ہے لیکن اس کو (ہر دور میں علماء_امت کی) جماعت نے جماعت سے قبول کیا تو مستغنی کردیا ہے اس کی صحت کو اس کی سند طلب کرنے سے، اسی طرح حدیث معاذ(رضی الله عنہ) ہے، جب دلیل پکڑی ہے تمام نے اس سے تو اس کی سند کو طلب کرنے سے مستغنی(بے-پرواہ/غیر-لازم) کردیا ہے.
——————————–

علامہ جمال الدین الملطی(الحنفی) رح لکھتے ہیں:

وخبر الواحد اذا تلقتھ ألأمة بالقبول عملا به و تصديقا له يفيد العلم (اليقيني) عند جماهير الأمة وهو أحد قسمتي المتواتر ولم يكن بين سلف الأمة في ذلك نزاع.[شرح عقيدة الطحاوية: ٣٥٥]
ترجمہ: اور خبر واحد کو جب امت قبول کرلے اس کی تصدق اور اس پر عمل کرتے ہوۓ تو جمہور علماء_امت کے نزدیک علم یقینی کا فائدہ دیتی ہے اور یہ بھی متواتر کی ایک قسم ہے. اسلاف_امت میں اس بارے میں کوئی نزاع نہیں.
——————————

فقہ حنفی کے عظیم محدث محقق، فقیہ، اصولی شیخ زاہد بن الحسن الکوثری رح لکھتے ہیں:

واحتجاج الأئمة بحديث تصحيح له منهم بل جمهور أهل العلم من جميع الطوائف على ان خبر الواحد إذا تلقته الأمة تصديقا له أو عملا به يوجب العلم.[مقالات الكوثري:٧٠]

ترجمہ: ائمہ کا بطور_دلیل کسی حدیث کو لےلینا یہ ان کی طرف سے اس حدیث کو صحیح قرار دینا ہوگا، بلکہ تمام جماعتوں کے جمہور اہل_علم اس اصول پر ہیں کہ خبر_واحد کو امت جب اس کی تصدق کرتے ہوۓ قبول کرلے تو یہ علم_یقینی کا فائدہ دیتی ہے.
—————————–

الحاصل:

(١) جس حدیث کو امت قبول کرلے یا اس پر کسی مسئلہ یا عقیدہ کی بنیاد رکھ لے، وہ حدیث صحیح کے درجہ سے متواتر کے درجہ میں ہوتی ہے اس کی سند پر بحث کرنا اصول_محدثین کے خلاف ہے.

(٢) اگر کئیاخبار آحاد (واحد کی جمع) ہوں، ان سے ایک معنی “مشترک” طور پر سمجھ میں آتا ہو، تو اس بات کو تواتر_معنوی حاصل ہوگا.

(٣) تواتر کی تمام اقسام یقین کا فائدہ دیتی ہیں.

(٤) اگر اخبار آحاد پر فردا فردا اعتراضات ہوں لیکن ان سے ثابت ہونے والے مفہوم پر وہ اعتراض وارد نہیں ہوگا، جیسے حضرت عیسیٰ علیہ السلام کی حیات تواتر_معنوی سے ثابت ہے، ان کی بعض روایات پر جرح اس اصل مسئلہ کے ثبوت میں کوئی نقصان نہیں پہنچاۓ گی، بلکہ ایسی روایات پر جرح کرنا ہی بے-فائدہ اور بے-کار ہوگا اور ایک اتفاقی مسئلہ کو مشکوک بنانے کی سعی لاحاصل ہوگی.

(٥) اجماع اسناد سے قوی ہے یعنی جس بات پر اجماع ہوجاۓ اس کی روایات کی جانچ پرکھ کی ضرورت نہیں.

موجودہ زمانہ میں اکثر حضرات ان اصولوں سے ناواقف ہیں، اس لئے وہ ہر حدیث کو سند کے اعتبار سے پرکھنا شروع کردیتے ہیں اور (مسلموں کی جماعت سے دور) گمراہی کے گڑھے میں جاگرتے ہیں. منکرین_حیات انبیاء (علیہ السلام) نے مسئلہ_حیات کا انکار اسی وجہ سے کیا ہے، حالانکہ احادیث_حیات تواتر تک پہنچی ہوئی ہیں.

إن من جملة ما تواتر عن النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم حياة الانبياء في قبورهم”. [نظم المتناثر من أحاديث المتواتر]

ترجمہ: جو روایات نبی (صلی الله علیہ وسلم) سے متواتر ہیں ان میں انبیاء (علیھم السلام) کا قبروں میں زندہ ہونا بھی ہے.

٦٠٠ کے قریب کتب کے مصنف علامہ جلال الدین السیوطی (الشافعی) رح لکھتے ہیں:

حياة النبي (صل الله عليه وسلم) في قبره هو وسائر الانبياء معلومة عندنا علما قطعيا لما قام عندنا من الأدلة في ذلك وتواترت له الأخبار الدالة على ذلك.[الحاوي للفتاوى: ٢/١٣٩]

ترجمہ: نبی اقدس (صلی الله علیہ وسلم) کی اور دوسرے انبیاء (علیھم السلام) کی قبر میں حیات ہونا ہمیں یقینی طور پر معلوم ہے، اس لئے کہ ہمارے نزدیک اس پر دلائل قائم ہیں اور اس مسئلہ پر دلالت کرنے والی روایات ہمارے نزدیک متواتر ہیں.

اور علامہ ابن القیم رہ نے “کتاب الروح” میں ابو عبدالله قرطبی سے بھی اسی طرح کی بات نقل کی ہے کہ ان کے نزدیک اس پر دلائل قائم ہیں اور اس مسئلہ پر دلالت کرنے والی روایات ہمارے نزدیک متواتر ہیں.

چونکہ احادیث حیات الانبیاء (علیھم السلام) کو تواتر حاصل ہے، اس لئے اس کا انکار کرنے والا اہل_سنّت والجماعت سے خارج (بدعتی) ہے، اور اس کے پیچھے نماز پڑھنا مکروہ_تحریمی ہے.

Can a Hadith be Rejected on the Excuse that “It Contradicts ‘Intellect’/‘Reason’ or the Principles of Sharī‘ah”??

Can I Reject a Ḥadīth because I feel that it contradicts ‘Intellect’/‘Reason’ or the Principles of Sharī‘ah?

By Mufti Muadh Chati

Introduction

Bismillāhir Raḥmānir Raḥīm,

Indeed, the Aḥādīth of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam hold a sacred place in the hearts of Muslims. The Aḥādīth are considered a primary source of Sharī‘ah and contain essential commands and advices that construct the edifice of Sharī‘ah.

Allah the Almighty says:

ﻟَﻘَﺪْ ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﻟَﻜُﻢْ ﻓِﻲْ ﺭَﺳُﻮْﻝِ ﺍﻟﻠﻪِ ﺃُﺳْﻮَﺓٌ ﺣَﺴَﻨَﺔٌ ﻟِﻤَﻦْ ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﻳَﺮْﺟُﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻪَ ﻭَﺍﻟْﻴَﻮْﻡَ ﺍﻵﺧِﺮَ ﻭَﺫَﻛَﺮَ ﺍﻟﻠﻪَ ﻛَﺜِﻴْﺮًﺍ

Translation:
“There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah the most excellent example for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often”

[Surah Al-Aḥzāb, verse 21]]

Allah the Almighty says:

ﻭَﻣَﺎ ﻳَﻨْﻄِﻖُ ﻋَﻦِ ﺍﻟْﻬَﻮَﻯ ﺇِﻥْ ﻫُﻮَ ﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﻭَﺣْﻲٌ ﻳُﻮْﺣَﻰ

Translation:

“He (the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) does not speak through his own inclination; it is but a [divinely] revealed revelation”

[Surah Al-Najm, verse 3-4]

Recently, claims have been made by reformists that it is permissible to reject a noble Ḥadīth if one feels that it contradicts one’s intellect or one feels that it contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah.

For example, these reformists have claimed that a narration found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī that purports that one wing of a fly contains an illness while the other contains a cure contradicts the intellect. This is despite the fact that it does not contradict the intellect at all, in fact, many modern-day cures contain remnants of the disease itself, as is the case with anti-venom; it is made using venom.

Some reformists have claimed that the narration narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī that purports that Mūsā ‘Alayh al-Salām placed his clothes on a stone that ran away, contradicts the principles of Sharī‘ah as it involves an unclothed Prophet running after his clothes. This is despite the fact that this does not contradict the principles of Sharī‘ah at all, in fact, the Qur’ān informs us of the story of Ādam ‘Alayh al-Salām and Hawā ‘Alayhā al-Salām, which contains similar elements to this narration.

Other reformists have claimed that a narration narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī that purports that the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam was temporarily affected by black magic that had been casted by his enemies contradicts the principles of Sharī‘ah as it involves a Prophet being affected by black magic. This is despite the fact that the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam was a human being, and thus, he experienced many of the difficulties that a human being goes through, such as illnesses and the pangs of death.

These claims of rejecting Aḥādīth on the assumption that they contradict the intellect or the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah are claimed to be validated by statements of the scholars of the past such as Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH).

In the coming article, we intend to discuss two issues:

1) Can a narration be labelled as a fabrication if I feel that it is contradictory to intellect/reason?

2) Can a narration be labelled as a fabrication if I feel that it contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah?

Note: In order to gain a better grasp of this article, readers are advised to read the entire article.

Can a narration be labelled as a fabrication if I feel that it is contradictory to ‘intellect’/‘reason’?

The Role of the Intellect/Reason in Sharī‘ah

An intellectual person is able to comprehend that his eyes, ears, nose, and other limbs have limitations. Human beings do not have the ability to see in the dark, nor do they have the ability to hear certain sound frequencies, and nor are they are able to smell certain odors. It then makes sense to state that if all the faculties of our body are confined by boundaries, then our intellect must also have a limit.

If this is coupled with the fact that we have been obliged to follow the commandments of the noble Sharī‘ah, whatever they may be, we are able to deduce that we are required to follow the commandments of Sharī‘ah regardless of whether they fall within the limitations of our intellect or outside of the limitations of our intellect.

If the Sharī‘ah were to be based exactly in accordance to our intellect, there would be no aspect of faith/belief (Ῑmān ) and the Sharī‘ah would inevitably serve the dictates of our innate self (nafs). The Sharī‘ah was sent in order to free each individual from the grasps of his innate self (nafs), it was not sent to become subservient to the innate self (nafs).

Imām Al-Bazdawī Raḥimahullah (d.482 AH) writes:

ﻭَﺃَﻥَّ ﺍﻟْﻌَﻘْﻞَ ﻟَﺎ ﻳَﻨْﻔَﻚُّ ﻋَﻦِ ﺍﻟْﻬَﻮَﻯ ﻓَﻠَﺎ ﻳَﺼْﻠُﺢُ ﺣُﺠَّﺔً ﺑِﻨَﻔْﺴِﻪِ ﺑِﺤَﺎﻝٍ
Translation:
“And the intellect/reason is not free from desires (hawā ), thus it alone can never serve as evidence”

[Imām Al-Bazdawī Raḥimahullah, ‘Uṣūl al-Bazdawī’, (Karachi: Mīr Muḥammad Kutub Khānāh, n.a), pg.323]

We are required to follow the commandments and dictates of Allah and His Messenger Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam; this is regardless of whether their commandments gain the support of our feeble intellect or the support of capricious scientific research.

As ‘Allāmah al-Qurṭubī Raḥimahullah (d.671 AH) explains:

ﺇِﻥَّ ﺍﻟﻠﻪَ ﺳُﺒْﺤَﺎﻧَﻪُ ﻟَﻢْ ﻳَﺒْﻦِ ﺃُﻣُﻮْﺭَ ﺍﻟﺪِّﻳْﻦِ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﻋُﻘُﻮْﻝِ ﺍﻟْﻌِﺒَﺎﺩِ ﻭَﻟَﻢْ ﻳَﻌِﺪْ ﻭَﻟَﻢْ ﻳُﻮْﻋِﺪْ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﻣَﺎ ﺗَﺤْﺘَﻤِﻠُﻪُ ﻋُﻘُﻮْﻟُﻬُﻢْ ﻭَﻳُﺪْﺭِﻛُﻮْﻧَﻬَﺎ ﺑِﺄَﻓْﻬَﺎﻣِﻬِﻢْ ﺑَﻞْ ﻭَﻋَﺪَ ﻭَﺃَﻭْﻋَﺪَ ﺑِﻤَﺸِﻴْﺌَﺘِﻪِ ﻭَﺇِﺭَﺍﺩَﺗِﻪِ ﻭَﺃَﻣَﺮَ ﻭَﻧَﻬَﻰ ﺑِﺤِﻜْﻤَﺘِﻪِ ﻭَﻟَﻮْ ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﻛُﻠَّﻤَﺎ ﻟَﺎ ﺗُﺪْﺭِﻛُﻪُ ﺍﻟْﻌُﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻣَﺮْﺩُﻭْﺩًﺍ ﻟَﻜَﺎﻥَ ﺃَﻛْﺜَﺮَ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺮَﺍﺋِﻊِ ﻣُﺴْﺘَﺤِﻴْﻠًﺎ

Translation:
“Indeed, Allah, The Exalted, did not base the matters of Dīn upon the intellect of the servants, and He did not promise or warn in accordance to what their intellects expect and understand, rather, he promised and warned according to His liking, and He commanded and prohibited with His wisdom. And if everything that the intellect does not comprehend were to be rejected, then the majority of the Sharī‘ah would be made redundant”

[‘Allāmah al-Qurṭubī, ‘Kitāb al-Tadhkirah bi-Aḥwāl al-Mawtā wa-Umūr al-Ākhirah’, (Riyad: Dār al-Minhāj, 1431 AH), pg.644, v.2]

The same applies to scientific discoveries; they are dependent upon research and investigations, the findings of which may change from time to time. Our Sharī‘ah is neither dependent nor confined by the discoveries of the modern-age. As ‘Allāmah Khaṭtābī Raḥimahullah (d.388 AH) explains:

ﻭَﻟَﻴْﺲَ ﺑِﻨَﺎ ﺣَﺎﺟَﺔٌ ﻣَﻊَ ﻗَﻮْﻝِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺳُﻮْﻝِ ﺻَﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺎﺩِﻕُ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺼْﺪُﻭْﻕُ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻱْ ﻳَﺄْﺗِﻴْﻪِ ﺍﻟْﻮَﺣْﻲُ ﺑِﺄَﺳْﺮَﺍﺭِ ﺍﻟْﻐَﻴْﺐِ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟْﺈِﺳْﺘِﺸْﻬَﺎﺩِ ﺑِﺄَﻗَﺎﻭِﻳْﻞِ ﺃَﻫْﻞِ ﺍﻟﻄِّﺐِّ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻳْﻦَ ﺇِﻧَّﻤَﺎ ﻭَﺻَﻠُﻮْﺍ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﻣَﺎ ﻭَﺻَﻠُﻮْﺍ ﺇِﻟَﻴْﻪِ ﻣِﻦْ ﻋِﻠْﻤِﻪِ ﺑِﻤُﻘَﺪَّﻣَﺎﺕِ ﺍﻟﺘَّﺠَﺎﺭِﺏِ ﻭَﺍﻟْﺈِﻣْﺘِﺤَﺎﻥِ ﻭَﻣِﻦْ ﻗَﻮْﻝِ ﺃُﺳْﺘَﺎﺫِﻫِﻢْ ﺑِﻘُﺮَﺍﻁَ ﻓِﻲْ ﺃَﻭَّﻝِ ﻛِﺘَﺎﺑِﻪِ : ﺍﻟﺘَّﺠْﺮِﺑَﺔُ ﺧَﻄَﺮٌ

Translation:

“We have no need to present with the statement of the Prophet Sallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam – the truthful, the accepted, the one to whom the revelation brought secrets of the unseen – as support, the statements of doctors, who have only acquired what they have acquired from their knowledge through experimentation and investigation, and in the words of one of their peers, Hippocrates, at the start of his book (titled Aphorisms): ‘experimentum periculosum’ (experiments are deceitful)”

[‘Allāmah Khaṭtābī, ‘A‘lām al-Ḥadīth’, (Makah: Jami‘ah Ummul Qurā, 1406 AH), pg.1126 v.3]

It is our belief that because our intellect is limited, that which benefits us can only be determined by our Creator – Whose knowledge is limitless.
Imām al-Shāṭibī Raḥimahullah (d.790 AH) writes:

ﻗَﺪْ ﻋُﻠِﻢَ ﺑِﺎﻟﺘِّﺠَﺎﺭِﺏِ ﻭَﺍﻟْﺨِﺒْﺮَﺓِ ﺍﻟﺴَّﺎﺭِﻳَﺔِ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟْﻌَﺎﻟَﻢِ ﻣِﻦْ ﺃَﻭَّﻝِ ﺍﻟﺪُّﻧْﻴَﺎ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟْﻴَﻮْﻡِ ﺃَﻥَّ ﺍﻟْﻌُﻘُﻮْﻝَ ﻏَﻴْﺮُ ﻣُﺴْﺘَﻘِﻠَّﺔٍ ﺑِﻤَﺼَﺎﻟِﺤِﻬَﺎ ﺍﺳْﺘِﺠْﻠَﺎﺑًﺎ ﻟَﻬَﺎ ﺃَﻭْ ﻣَﻔَﺎﺳِﺪِﻫَﺎ ﺍﺳْﺘِﺪْﻓَﺎﻋًﺎ ﻟَﻬَﺎ

Translation:

“Indeed, it has been known through experience and normative understanding in the universe, from the beginning of the world until today, that the intellect is not independent in knowing that which is beneficial for it; so that it may acquire it, or [in knowing] that which is harmful for it; so that it may refrain from it”

[Imām al-Shāṭibī, ‘Al ‘Itiṣām Bi al-Kitāb wa’l- Sunnah’, (n.a: Maktabah al-Tawḥīd, n.a), pg.57, v.1]

Shāh Waliullah al-Muḥaddith al-Dehlawī Raḥimahullah (d.1176 AH) writes:

ﺍﻟﻨَّﺒِﻲُّ ﺻَﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﺃَﻭْﺛَﻖُ ﻋِﻨْﺪَﻧَﺎ ﻣِﻦْ ﻋُﻘُﻮْﻟِﻨَﺎ

Translation:

“The Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam is more reliable to us than our intellect”

[Shāh Waliullah al-Muḥaddith al-Dehlawī, ‘Hujjatullah al-Bāligah’, (Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 2005), pg.30, v.1]

Of course, this is not to say that the human intellect and reason have no place in Sharī‘ah. It is possible for a person to recognise the existence and greatness of Allah the Almighty through his intellect and reason.

Scholars including the likes of Ibn Abī al-Dunyā Raḥimahullah (d.281 AH), Ibn Ḥibbān Raḥimahullah (d.354 AH), al-Ghazālī Raḥimahullah (d.505 AH), Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH), Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī Raḥimahullah (d.606 AH), and Imām al-Shāṭibī Raḥimahullah (d.790 AH) have written on the incredible gift from Allah, that is, the human intellect and reason.

However, the human intellect has its limits, it cannot be used to supersede and override the indisputable commands of Allah and the authentic commands of His Messenger Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam. Accordingly, our approach to the human intellect and reason should be balanced.
The Malikī scholar, Zayn al-Dīn Ibn al-Munayyir Raḥimahullah (d.695 AH) said:

ﻣَﻦْ ﺯَﻋَﻢَ ﺃَﻥَّ ﺍﻟْﺄَﺣْﻜَﺎﻡَ ﻛُﻠَّﻬَﺎ ﺗَﻌَﺒُّﺪِﻳَّﺔٌ ﻟَﺎ ﻣَﺠَﺎﻝَ ﻟِﻠْﻘِﻴَﺎﺱِ ﻓِﻴْﻬَﺎ ﺃَﻟْﺤَﻘَﻪُ ﺑِﺠُﺤُﻮْﺩِ ﺍﻟْﺠَﺒْﺮِﻳَّﺔِ ﻭَﻣَﻦْ ﺯَﻋَﻢَ ﺃَﻧَّﻬَﺎ ﻗِﻴَﺎﺳِﻴَّﺔٌ ﻣَﺤْﻀَﺔٌ ﺃَﻟْﺤَﻘَﻪُ ﺑِﺘَﻬَﻮُّﺭِ ﺍﻟْﻤُﻌْﺘَﺰِﻟَﺔِ ﻭَﺍﻟْﺤَﻖُّ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟﺘَّﻮَﺳُّﻂِ ” ﻭَﻛَﺎﻥَ ﺑَﻴْﻦَ ﺫَﻟِﻚَ ﻗَﻮَﺍﻣًﺎ”

Translation:

“If one considers the rulings [of Sharī‘ah] to be entirely literal in which there is no scope for intellectual reasoning, then this shall lead him to the denial perpetrated by the al-Jabariyyah sect (a deviant sect), and if one considers them (the rulings of Sharī‘ah) to be completely [based upon] intellectual reason, then this shall lead him to the mistakes perpetrated by the al-Mu‘tazilah sect (a deviant sect), and the correct [approach] is a middle-path/moderation; [Allah the Almighty says], ‘And they are steadfast in the middle [path]’”

[‘Allāmah al-Zarkashī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ’, (Cairo: Wuzārah al-Awqāf, 1992), pg.27, v.5]

A balanced approach towards human intellect and reason in Sharī‘ah may be understood with a parable presented by a renowned scholar. Consider three individuals leaving their homes with the intention of climbing a steep mountain. Each of the three individuals possesses a horse. The first individual considers a horse a critical asset, thus he rides his horse from his home until he reaches the mountain, after reaching the mountain; he begins to climb the steep mountain while riding his horse, almost immediately, both the horse and the rider fall of the mountain. The second individual considers a horse a useless asset, accordingly, instead of riding the horse, he begins to walk from his home towards the mountain, however, when he reaches the mountain, he is too exhausted to climb the mountain. The third individual has a balanced approach towards the horse, he knows that while the horse has its capabilities, it also has its limitations, thus he rides the horse until he reaches the mountain, he then dismounts from the horse and begins to climb the mountain on foot. He succeeds in climbing the mountain.

The third individual succeeds in climbing the mountain because he used his horse at the correct juncture and left his horse at the correct juncture, while the first individual relied entirely upon his horse, such that he used his horse at an incorrect juncture, and the second individual did not valorize his horse at all.

We cannot reject the tenets of our religion and the authentic Aḥādīth if we ‘feel’ that they contradict our reasoning or intellect.

The irresolute/fickle morals, ethics, opinions, and beliefs of the modern society cannot be made a standard for the resolute and firm principles of Islām. The modern society considers correct today what it considered incorrect yesterday and it will consider correct tomorrow what it considers incorrect today. Similarly, the modern society considers absurd today what it considered comprehensible yesterday and it will consider comprehensible tomorrow what is considers absurd today.

Can I use my Intellect/Reason to reject Aḥādīth?

Recently, we have seen a wave of attacks hurled at the noble Aḥādīth of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam. Individuals claiming to be championing a supposed ‘voice of reason’ have forced their intellect and reasoning onto the noble Prophetic narrations, thus rejecting narrations that supposedly contradict their intellect and reasoning.

Using the statements of Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) and others, these individuals are claiming that it is possible for every individual to reject Aḥādīth.
In explaining what is meant by the notion of when a text of Ḥadīth contradicts intellect, modernists and Islamic reformists take great pleasure in quoting the statement of Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH):

ﻭَﻛُﻞُّ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﺭَﺃَﻳْﺘَﻪُ ﻳُﺨَﺎﻟِﻒُ ﺍﻟْﻌُﻘُﻮْﻝَ ﺃَﻭْ ﻳُﻨَﺎﻗِﺾُ ﺍﻟْﺄُﺻُﻮْﻝَ ﻓَﺎﻋْﻠَﻢْ ﺃَﻧَّﻪُ ﻣَﻮْﺿُﻮْﻉٌ ﻓَﻠَﺎ ﺗَﺘَﻜَﻠَّﻒْ ﺍﻋْﺘِﺒَﺎﺭَﻩُ

Translation:

“And every Ḥadīth that you see contradicting the intellect or breaking the principles [of Sharī‘ah], then know that it is fabricated, so do not exert yourself in considering it”

[Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al Mawḍū’āt Minal Aḥādīth Al Marfū’āt’, (Riyāḍ: Aḍwā Al Salaf, 1997), pg.151, v.1]

‘Allāmah Sakhāwī Raḥimahullah (d.904 AH) explains:

ﺍﻟﺮِّﻛَّﺔُ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟْﻤَﻌْﻨَﻰ ﻛَﺄَﻥْ ﻳَﻜُﻮْﻥَ ﻣُﺨَﺎﻟِﻔًﺎ ﻟِﻠْﻌَﻘْﻞِ ﺿَﺮُﻭْﺭَﺓً ﺃَﻭْ ﺍﺳْﺘِﺪْﻟَﺎﻟًﺎ ﻭَﻟَﺎ ﻳَﻘْﺒَﻞُ ﺍﻟﺘَّﺄْﻭِﻳْﻞَ ﺑِﺤَﺎﻝٍ ﻧَﺤْﻮَ ﺍﻟْﺈِﺧْﺒَﺎﺭِ ﻋَﻦِ ﺍﻟْﺠَﻤْﻊِ ﺑَﻴْﻦَ ﺍﻟﻀِّﺪَّﻳْﻦِ ﻭَﻋَﻦْ ﻧَﻔْﻲِ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺎﻧِﻊِ ﻭَﻗِﺪَﻡِ ﺍﻟْﺄَﺟْﺴَﺎﻡِ

Translation:

“Feebleness in the meaning, such as it being contradictory to the intellect logically or calculatedly, and it does not accept reconciliation in any way, such as a narration that informs of two opposites coming together or it rejects a creator or it informs that the bodies are pre-eternal (all of which contradict the intellect)”

[‘Allāmah Sakhāwī Raḥimahullah, ‘Fatḥ al-Mugīth’, (Riyad: Dār al-Minhāj, 1436 AH), pg.128, v.2]

‘Allāmah Suyūṭī Raḥimahullah explains:

ﺃَﻥْ ﻳَﻜُﻮْﻥَ ﻣُﺨَﺎﻟِﻔًﺎ ﻟِﻠْﻌَﻘْﻞِ ﺑِﺤَﻴْﺚُ ﻟَﺎ ﻳَﻘْﺒَﻞُ ﺍﻟﺘَّﺄْﻭِﻳْﻞَ

Translation:

“…that it contradicts the intellect in a manner that it cannot be reconciled

[‘Allāmah Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī Raḥimahullah, ‘Tadrīb al-Rāwī’, (Riyāḍ: Dār al-Minhāj, 2016), pg.434, v.3] [Also see: al-Biqa‘ī Raḥimahullah, ‘al-Nukat al-Wafiyyah’, (Riyad: Maktabah al-Rushd), pg.578, v.1] [Also see: Ibn al-Mulaqqin, ‘Al-Muqni‘’, (Makah: Jami‘ah Ummul Qurā, 1403 AH), pg.114]

It is clear from the quotes above that when Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) mentioned that a Ḥadīth may be labeled as fabricated if it contradicts the intellect, he was not referring to Aḥādīth that contradict the understandings and morals of the fickle modern-day society, rather, he was referring to Aḥādīth that contradict basic logic. For example, if the words of a supposed Ḥadīth were to claim that Allah does not exist, or that 1 + 1 = 3, then this supposed Ḥadīth would be rejected.

[See: Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah (may Allah preserve him), ‘Footnotes upon Tadrīb al-Rāwī’, (Riyāḍ: Dār al-Minhāj, 2016), pg.434, v.3] [Khalīl Mullā Khāṭir, ‘Al-Isabah Fī Ṣiḥhati Ḥadīth al-Dhubābah’, (Jeddah: Dār al-Qiblah, 1405 AH), pg.99]

This is supported by the fact that Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) mentions this statement after quoting a fabricated narration that claims that Allah the Almighty created Himself (this is logically impossible as the created cannot be a creator). Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) also precedes the above-mentioned statement with the words:

ﻟِﺄَﻥَّ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺴْﺘَﺤِﻴْﻞَ ﻟَﻮْ ﺻَﺪَﺭَ ﻋَﻦِ ﺍﻟﺜِّﻘَﺎﺕِ ﺭُﺩَّ

Translation:

“…because if a logically impossible (Mustahil – such as a supposed narration claiming that Allah does not exist) statement were to be made by reliable narrators, it would be rejected”

[Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al Mawḍū’āt Minal Aḥādīth Al Marfū’āt’, (Riyāḍ: Aḍwā Al Salaf, 1997), pg.150, v.1]

As for when a Ḥadīth heralds a meaning of miracles or other concepts that the intellect cannot comprehend or fathom, then such a Ḥadīth cannot be impetuously rejected.

It is for this reason that a leading scholar of Ḥadīth of our time, Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah, may Allah preserve him, explains:

ﺍﻟْﻌَﻘْﻞُ ﺍﻟﺴَّﻠِﻴْﻢُ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺮْﻋِﻲُ ﺍﻟْﺨَﺎﻟِﻲْ ﻣِﻦْ ﺷَﻮَﺍﺋِﺐِ ﺍﻟْﻬَﻮَﻯ ﻭَﺍﻟْﺈِﻧْﺤِﺮَﺍﻑِ ﻭﻟﻮﺛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺤﺪﺓ ﻭَﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﺍﻟﺪِّﻳْﻦُ ﺃُﻟْﻌُﻮْﺑَﺔً ﻟِﻜُﻞِّ ﺫِﻱْ ﻫَﻮًﻯ ﻭَﺿَﻠَﺎﻟَﺔٍ ﺗَﺤْﺖَ ﺷِﻌَﺎﺭِ ﺍﻟﺘَّﻤَﺴُّﻚِ ﺑِﻤِﺜْﻞِ ﻫَﺬِﻩِ ﺍﻟﻨُّﺼُﻮْﺹِ ﻭَﻧَﺤْﻦُ ﻧَﻌِﻴْﺶُ ﻫَﺬِﻩِ ﺍﻟْﻤَﻔَﺎﻫِﻴْﻢَ ﺍﻟْﺂﻥَ !!

Translation:

“The type of intellect (that is considered in assessing a Ḥadīth) is one that is sound, bound by Sharī‘ah, and free from the clamours of desire and heresy and the contamination of the modern society and the atheistic environment, otherwise, the Dīn would become a play for every deviant and misguided person under [the pretense] of holding firm to such statements (that mention that intellect plays a role in Ḥadīth), and we are now living in the time of such thoughts!”

[Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah (may Allah preserve him), ‘Footnotes upon Tadrīb al-Rāwī’, (Riyad: Dār al-Minhāj, 2016), pg.559, v.2]

To reiterate, the irresolute/fickle morals, ethics, opinions, and beliefs of the modern society cannot be made a standard for the resolute and firm principles of Islām. The modern society considers correct today what it considered incorrect yesterday and it will consider correct tomorrow what it considers incorrect today. Similarly, the modern society considers absurd today what it considered comprehensible yesterday and it will consider comprehensible tomorrow what is considers absurd today.

Can a narration be labeled as a fabrication if I feel that it contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah?

We have acquired our Aḥādīth through chains of narrations. These chains of narrations were rigorously scrutinized by the Ḥadīth scholars of the past who analysed the intricate details of a chain of narration in order to deduce whether a narration is sound, apocryphal, or fabricated. At times, masterful Ḥadīth scholars of the past scrutinised a narration based upon the fact that the text of the narration contradicts a fundamental and bonafide principle of Sharī‘ah. However, this was a delicate task, undertaken by a privileged few, as performing this daunting task required one to have profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and an incredible grasp on Ḥadīth. It was in no way permitted for the laity.

Islamic reformists have made an attempt to allow the layman to also engage in criticism of a narration based upon whether its text is in conformity with the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah or not. This is despite the fact that a layman does not even have basic knowledge of Sharī‘ah, never mind the delicate and complex knowledge required to make such precarious decisions.

Modernists and Islāmic reformists take great pleasure in quoting statements of scholars such as Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH), Al-Ḥāfiẓ Al Ya‘murī Raḥimahullah (d.734 AH); et al. who have mentioned that if a narration contradicts the principles and objectives of Islām, then it may be rejected even if the chain of narration is sound.

However, what they fail to realize is that the early scholars who ruled certain Aḥādīth to be fabricated based upon the text of the Ḥadīth contradicting the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah did so through
profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and an incredible grasp on Ḥadīth.

If an individual wishes to assess whether a coin is genuine or counterfeit, he ensures to take it to a specialist, within seconds the specialist would be able to determine whether or not the coin is genuine due to his profound knowledge of coins. In the same manner, beyond their meticulous examination of the chains of narration, some of the early scholars of Ḥadīth were
gifted with an ability to deduce whether a narration is authentic by looking at the text of the narration due to their profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and an incredible grasp on Ḥadīth . Profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah in this context means that the knowledge of Sharī‘ah and the sciences of Ḥadīth were embedded and ingrained within them such that they could at will recite hundreds of thousands of Aḥādīth with their chains of narration from memory.

We shall soon demonstrate this with examples from the lives of some of these scholars of Ḥadīth.

When Ibn Al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) said:

ﻭَﺍﻋْﻠَﻢْ ﺃَﻥَّ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚَ ﺍﻟْﻤُﻨَﻜَﺮَ ﻳَﻘْﺸَﻌِﺮُّ ﻟَﻪُ ﺟِﻠْﺪُ ﺍﻟﻄَّﺎﻟِﺐِ ﻟِﻠْﻌِﻠْﻢِ ﻭَﻳَﻨْﻔَﺮُّ ﻣِﻨْﻪُ ﻗَﻠْﺒُﻪُ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟْﻐَﺎﻟِﺐِ

Translation:

“And know! That a rejected Ḥadīth, the skin of a seeker of noble knowledge trembles from it, and, in most cases, his heart turns away from it”

[Ibn Al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Mawḍū’āt Min al-Aḥādīth al-Marfū’āt’, (Riyāḍ: Aḍwā Al Salaf, 1997), pg.146, v.1]

The scholars of the sciences of Ḥadīth stepped in to explain that this is definitely not for everyone. Thus, Imām Al-Biqā’ī Raḥimahullah (d.885 AH) relates in his Al-Nukat al-Wafiyyah , the majority of which is taken from Ḥafiẓ Ibn Ḥajar Raḥimahullah (d.882 AH)’s lectures delivered on Al-Tabṣirah wa’l-Tadhkirah , with regards to the statement of Ibn Al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) recorded above:

ﺍﻟﻄَّﺎﻟِﺐُ ﻟِﻠْﻌِﻠْﻢِ ﺃَﻱْ ﺍﻟْﻜَﺜِﻴْﺮُ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺨَﺎﻟَﻄَﺔِ ﻟِﺄﻧْﻔَﺎﺱِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺳُﻮْﻝِ ﺻَﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺘَﻤَﻜِّﻦُ ﻣِﻦَ ﺍﻟﺴَّﻨَﺪِ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺪِﻳْﺪُ ﺍﻟْﻤُﻤَﺎﺭَﺳَﺔِ ﻟِﻠﺸَّﺮِﻳْﻌَﺔِ ﺍﻟْﻌَﺎﺭِﻑُ ﺑِﺎﻟْﻤَﻘْﺒُﻮْﻝِ ﻣِﻦَ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺮْﺩُﻭْﺩِ ﻟَﺎ ﻛُﻞُّ ﻃَﺎﻟِﺐٍ

Translation:

“‘Seeker of noble knowledge’ – i.e. [Ibn Al-Jawzi is referring to] one who has perpetually engrossed himself with the breaths (Aḥādīth) of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam, and he is an expert in the chains of narration, and he has extraordinary mastery with the principles of Sharī‘ah, and he is able to distinguish accepted from unaccepted, not every seeker [of noble knowledge]

[Al-Biqā’ī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Nukat al-Wafiyyah’, (Riyad: Maktabah al-Rushd, 2007), pg.578 v.1] [Shaykh Aḥmad Ma‘bad ‘Abd al-Karīm, ‘Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-‘Irāqī wa-Atharuhu Fil Sunnah’, (Riyad: Aḍwā al-Salaf, 2004), pg.1999 v.5]

Effectively, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar Raḥimahullah (d.882 AH) ruled out the possibility for those who do not have profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah to use Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH)’s statement as a conduit to reject Aḥādīth. We shall soon explain what we mean by profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah in this context.

‘Allāmah Sakhāwī Raḥimahullah (d.904 AH) explains the statement of Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH) as follows:

ﻭَﻋَﻨَﻰ ﺑِﺬَﻟِﻚَ ﺍﻟْﻤُﻤَﺎﺭِﺱَ ﻟِﺄَﻟْﻔَﺎﻅِ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺮْﻉِ ﺍﻟْﺨَﺒِﻴْﺮَ ﺑِﻬَﺎ ﻭَﺑِﺮَﻭْﻧَﻘِﻬَﺎ ﻭَﺑَﻬْﺠَﺘِﻬَﺎ

Translation:

“And he (Ibn al-Jawzī) intends by this (a seeker of sacred knowledge): one who is perpetually engrossed in the texts of Sharī‘ah, and he has profound knowledge of them (the texts of Sharī‘ah) and their essence and objectives”

[‘Allāmah Sakhāwī Raḥimahullah, ‘Fatḥ al-Mugīth’, (Riyad: Dār al-Minhāj, 1436 AH), pg.128, v.2]

Ibn al-‘Ajamī Raḥimahullah (d.1086 AH) comments under the statement of Ibn al-Jawzī Raḥimahullah (d.597 AH):

ﻃَﺎﻟِﺐُ ﺍﻟْﻌِﻠْﻢِ : ﺍﻟْﻤُﻤَﺎﺭِﺱُ ﻟِﺄَﻟْﻔَﺎﻅِ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺮْﻉِ ﺣَﺘَّﻰ ﻳَﺤْﺼُﻞَ ﻣَﻠَﻜَﺔً ﻗَﻮِﻳَّﺔً ﻭَﻫِﻤَّﺔً ﺭَﺍﺳِﺨَﺔً ﻳُﻔَﺮِّﻕُ ﺑِﻬَﺎ ﺑَﻴْﻦَ ﺍﻟْﻤَﻮْﺿُﻮْﻉِ ﻭَﻏَﻴْﺮِﻩِ

Translation:

“Seeker of knowledge: i.e. one who is perpetually engrossed in the texts of Sharī‘ah such that he has achieved an incredible ability and firm prowess such that he may distinguish with it between fabricated and non-fabricated”

[Ibn al-‘Ajamī, Footnotes upon Tadrīb al-Rāwī, (Riyad: Dār al-Minhāj, 2016), pg.432, v.3]

After establishing that criticism of a narration based upon the text of the narration was reserved for those who had deeply profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and an incredible grasp on Ḥadīth, let us demonstrate what denotes profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and an incredible grasp of Ḥadīth through the lives of the scholars who heralded this quality.

The Benchmark for Profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and an incredible grasp on Ḥadīth through the lives of the scholars of the past

Imām Al-Layth Ibn Sa’d Raḥimahullah (d.175 AH)

ﻗِﻴْﻞَ ﻟِﻠَّﻠﻴْﺚِ ﺃَﻣْﺘَﻊَ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﺑِﻚَ ﺇِﻧَّﺎ ﻧَﺴْﻤَﻊُ ﻣِﻨْﻚَ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚَ ﻟَﻴْﺲَ ﻓِﻲْ ﻛُﺘُﺒِﻚَ ﻓَﻘَﺎﻝَ ﺃَﻭَﻛُﻞُّ ﻣَﺎ ﻓِﻲْ ﺻَﺪْﺭِﻱْ ﻓِﻲْ ﻛُﺘُﺒِﻲْ؟ ﻟَﻮْ ﻛَﺘَﺒْﺖُ ﻣَﺎ ﻓِﻲْ ﺻَﺪْﺭِﻱْ ﻣَﺎ ﻭَﺳِﻌَﻪُ ﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺮْﻛَﺐُ

Translation:

“It was said to Layth ibn Sa’d, ‘May Allah reward you, indeed we hear from you Aḥādīth that are not in your books’, so he responded, ‘Is everything that is in my heart in my books? If I were to write everything that is in my memory, then it would not fit inside this ship’”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah Al Risālah, 1985), pg.153 v.8]

Imām Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn Raḥimahullah (233 AH)
Muḥammad ibn Naṣr al-Ṭabarī Raḥimahullah said:

ﺩَﺧَﻠْﺖُ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﻳَﺤْﻴَﻰ ﺑْﻦِ ﻣَﻌِﻴْﻦ ﻓَﻮَﺟَﺪْﺕُ ﻋِﻨْﺪَﻩُ ﻛَﺬَﺍ ﻭَﻛَﺬَﺍ ﺳِﻔْﻄًﺎ ﻳَﻌْﻨِﻲْ ﺩَﻓَﺎﺗِﺮًﺍ ﻭَﺳَﻤِﻌْﺘُﻪُ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻗَﺪْ ﻛَﺘَﺒْﺖُ ﺑِﻴَﺪَﻱَّ ﺃَﻟْﻒَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ

Translation:

“I visited Yaḥyā ibn Ma’īn and found by him such and such amounts of parchments, i.e. books, and I heard him say, ‘Indeed, I have written with these two hands of mine, a million narrations”

[Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī Raḥimahullah, ‘Taḥdhīb al-Kamāl’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1992), pg.548, v.31]

Imām Isḥāq Ibn Rāhwayh Raḥimahullah (d.238 AH)
Abū Dāwūd al-Khaffāf Raḥimahullah said:

ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﺇِﺳْﺤَﺎﻕَ ﺑْﻦَ ﺭَﺍﻫْﻮِﻳْﻪ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻟَﻜَﺄَﻧِّﻲْ ﺃَﻧْﻈُﺮُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﻣِﺌَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻓِﻲْ ﻛُﺘُﺒِﻲْ ﻭَﺛَﻠَﺎﺛِﻴْﻦَ ﺃَﻟْﻔًﺎ ﺃَﺳْﺮُﺩُﻫَﺎ

Translation:

“I heard Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh say, ‘Indeed, it is as though I am looking at 100,000 narrations in my books and 30,000 [narrations] I am able to recite”

Al-Khaffāf then states:

ﻭَﺃَﻣْﻠَﻰ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻨَﺎ ﺇِﺳْﺤَﺎﻕَ ﺃَﺣَﺪَ ﻋَﺸَﺮَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻣِﻦْ ﺣِﻔْﻈِﻪِ ﺛُﻢَّ ﻗَﺮَﺃَﻫَﺎ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻨَﺎ ﻓَﻤَﺎ ﺯَﺍﺩَ ﺣَﺮْﻓًﺎ ﻭَﻟَﺎ ﻧَﻘْﺺَ ﺣَﺮْﻓًﺎ

Translation:

“Isḥāq dictated 11,000 narrations to us from his memory, he then read them out to us [again] without adding or removing a single letter”

Abū Yazīd Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā ibn Khālid Raḥimahullah said:

ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﺇِﺳْﺤَﺎﻕَ ﺑْﻦَ ﺇِﺑْﺮَﺍﻫِﻴْﻢَ ﺍﻟْﺤَﻨْﻈَﻠِﻲَّ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻓِﻲْ ﺳَﻨَﺔِ ﺛَﻤَﺎﻥِ ﻭَّﺛَﻠَﺎﺛِﻴْﻦَ ﻭَﻣِﺎﺋَﺘَﻴْﻦِ ” ﺃَﻋْﺮِﻑُ ﻣَﻜَﺎﻥَ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻛَﺄَﻧِّﻲْ ﺃَﻧْﻈُﺮُ ﺇِﻟَﻴْﻬَﺎ ﻭَﺃَﺣْﻔَﻆُ ﻣِﻨْﻬَﺎ ﺳَﺒْﻌِﻴْﻦَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻣِﻦْ ﻇَﻬْﺮِ ﻗَﻠْﺒِﻲْ ﺻَﺤِﻴْﺤَﺔٍ ﻭَﺃَﺣْﻔَﻆُ ﺃَﺭْﺑَﻌَﺔَ ﺁﻟَﺎﻑِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻣُﺰَﻭَّﺭَﺓٍ ﻓَﻘِﻴْﻞَ ﻣَﺎ ﻣَﻌْﻨَﻰ ﺣِﻔْﻆِ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺰَﻭَّﺭَﺓِ؟ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺇِﺫَﺍ ﻣَﺮَّ ﺑِﻲْ ﻣِﻨْﻬَﺎ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٌ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟْﺄَﺣَﺎﺩِﻳْﺚِ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺤِﻴْﺤَﺔِ ﻓَﻠَﻴْﺘُﻪُ ﻣِﻨْﻬَﺎ ﻓَﻠْﻴًﺎ

Translation:

“I heard Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm al-Hanẓalī (Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh) say in the year 238 AH, ‘I know the locations of 100,000 narrations (this number includes Aḥādīth with different chains of narration as well as the statements of the Ṣaḥābah) as though I am looking at them, and I have memorized 70,000 narrations from them that are authentic and they are in the crevices of my heart, and I know 4000 fabricated narrations’, it was asked of him, ‘What do you mean by memorising fabricated narrations?’ He replied, ‘When I come across a [fabricated] narration from [my tomes of] authentic narrations, then I swiftly remove it”

[Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Jāmi‘ Li Akhlāq al-Rāwī wa-Ādāb al-Sāmi‘’, (Beirut: Dār al-Garb al-Islāmī, 2001), pg.381, v.2]

Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal Raḥimahullah (d.242 AH)

A contemporary of Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d.242 AH), Abū Zur’ah al-Rāzī Raḥimahullah:

ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﺍﺑْﻦُ ﺣَﻨْﺒَﻞَ ﻳَﺤْﻔَﻆُ ﺃَﻟْﻒَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ

Translation:

“[Aḥmad] ibn Ḥanbal had memorized a million narrations (this number includes Aḥādīth with different chains of narration and the statements of the Ṣaḥābah)”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.187 v.11] [Ibn al-Jawzī, Manāqib al-Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal’, (Giza: Dār Hijr, n.a), pg.73]

Imām al-Bukhārī Raḥimahullah (d.256 AH)

Muḥammad ibn Khamīrwayh Raḥimahullah said:

ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﻣُﺤَﻤَّﺪَ ﺑْﻦَ ﺇِﺳْﻤَﺎﻋِﻴْﻞَ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ” ﺃَﺣْﻔَﻆُ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺔَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﺻَﺤِﻴْﺢٍ ﻭَﺃَﺣْﻔَﻆُ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺘَﻲْ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻏَﻴْﺮِ ﺻَﺤِﻴْﺢٍ

Translation:

I heard Muḥammad ibn Ismā’īl say, ‘I have memorized 100,000 authentic narrations (this number includes Aḥādīth with different chains of narration and the statements of the Ṣaḥābah), and I have memorized 200,000 inauthentic narrations’”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.415 v.12]

‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Asim al-Baykandī Raḥimahullah states:

ﻗَﺪِﻡَ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻨَﺎ ﻣُﺤَﻤَّﺪُ ﺑْﻦُ ﺇِﺳْﻤَﺎﻋِﻴْﻞَ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﻓَﺎﺟْﺘَﻤَﻌْﻨَﺎ ﻋِﻨْﺪَﻩُ ﻓَﻘَﺎﻝَ ﺑَﻌْﻀُﻨَﺎ ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﺇِﺳْﺤَﺎﻕَ ﺑْﻦَ ﺭَﺍﻫْﻮِﻳْﻪ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻛَﺄَﻧِّﻲْ ﺃَﻧْﻈُﺮُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺳَﺒْﻌِﻴْﻦَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻣِﻦْ ﻛِﺘَﺎﺑِﻲْ ﻓَﻘَﺎﻝَ ﻣُﺤَﻤَّﺪُ ﺑْﻦُ ﺇِﺳْﻤَﺎﻋِﻴْﻞَ ﺃَﻭْ ﺗَﻌْﺠَﺐُ ﻣِﻦْ ﻫَﺬَﺍ؟ ! ﻟَﻌَﻞَّ ﻓِﻲْ ﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺍﻟﺰَّﻣَﺎﻥِ ﻣَﻦْ ﻳَﻨْﻈُﺮُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺘَﻲْ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻣِﻦْ ﻛِﺘَﺎﺑِﻪِ ﻭَﺇِﻧَّﻤَﺎ ﻋَﻨَﻰ ﺑِﻪِ ﻧَﻔْﺴَﻪُ

Translation:

“Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘īl came to us, so we gathered by him, then some of us said, ‘I heard Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh say, “It is as though I am looking at 70,000 narrations from my books”’, so Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘īl said, ‘Are you amazed by this?! It is possible that there is someone in this age who is looking at 200,000 narrations in his book’ – referring to himself”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.416 v.12]

Imām Muslim ibn Ḥajjāj Raḥimahullah (d.261 AH)

Al-Husayn ibn Muḥammad al-Māsarjisī states:

ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﻣُﺴْﻠِﻤًﺎ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﺻَﻨَّﻔْﺖُ ﻫَﺬَﺍ ” ﺍﻟْﻤُﺴْﻨَﺪَ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺤِﻴْﺢَ ” ﻣِﻦْ ﺛَﻠَﺎﺙِ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻣَﺴْﻤُﻮْﻋَﺔٍ

Translation:

“I heard Muslim [ibn al-Ḥajjāj] say, ‘I wrote this ‘al-Musnad al-Ṣaḥīḥ’ from 300,000 narrations [that I have] heard’”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.565 v.12]

Imām Abū Zur‘ah al-Rāzī Raḥimahullah (d.264 AH)

Abū ‘Abdillah ibn Mandah relates from Abul ‘Abbas Muḥammad ibn Ja‘far ibn Ḥamkawayh that he said:

ﺳُﺌِﻞَ ﺃَﺑُﻮْ ﺯُﺭْﻋَﺔَ ﻋَﻦْ ﺭَﺟُﻞٍ ﺣَﻠَﻒَ ﺑِﺎﻟﻄَّﻠَﺎﻕِ ﺃَﻥَّ ﺃَﺑَﺎ ﺯُﺭْﻋَﺔَ ﻳَﺤْﻔَﻆُ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺘَﻲْ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻫَﻞْ ﺣَﻨَﺚَ؟ ﻓَﻘَﺎﻝَ ﻟَﺎ ﺛُﻢَّ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺃَﺑُﻮْ ﺯُﺭْﻋَﺔَ ﺃَﺣْﻔَﻆُ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺘَﻲْ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻛَﻤَﺎ ﻳَﺤْﻔَﻆُ ﺍﻟْﺈِﻧْﺴَﺎﻥُ ” ﻗُﻞْ ﻫُﻮَ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﺃَﺣَﺪٌ ”

Translation:

“Abū Zur‘ah was asked about a man who has taken an oath that his wife shall be divorced if it is untrue that Abū Zur‘ah has memorized 200,000 narrations, that will his divorce take place? So he replied, ‘I have memorized 200,000 narrations like how a person has memorized Qul Huwallahu Aḥad (Surah Ikhlās)”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.68 v.13] [See: ‘Allamah Tāj al-Subkī, ‘Ṭabqāt al-Shāf‘iyyah’, (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, n.a), pg.65, v.1]

Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal Raḥimahullah (d.241 AH) said:

ﺻَﺢَّ ﻣِﻦَ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﺳَﺒْﻊُ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻭَﻛَﺴْﺮٌ ﻭَﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺍﻟْﻔَﺘَﻰ ﻳَﻌْﻨِﻲْ ﺃَﺑَﺎ ﺯُﺭْﻋَﺔَ ﻗَﺪْ ﺣَﻔِﻆَ ﺳِﺖَّ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒٍ

Translation:

“700,000 Aḥādīth (this number includes Aḥādīth with different chains of narration as well as the statements of the Ṣaḥābah) and a little more from the Aḥādīth are authentic, and this youngster (Abū Zur‘ah) has memorized 600,000 Aḥādīth”

[Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī Raḥimahullah, ‘Tārīkh Baghdād’, (Beirut: Dār al-Garb al-Islāmī, 2001), pg.41, v.12]

Imām Abū Dāwūd Raḥimahullah (d.275 AH)

Al-Fallās Raḥimahullah states:

ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﺃَﺑَﺎ ﺩَﺍﻭُﺩَ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﺃَﺳْﺮُﺩُ ﺛَﻠَﺎﺛِﻴْﻦَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﻭَﻟَﺎ ﻓَﺨْﺮَ ﻭَﻓِﻲْ ﺻَﺪْﺭِﻱْ ﺍﺛْﻨَﺎ ﻋَﺸَﺮَ ﺃَﻟْﻔًﺎ ﻟِﻌُﺜْﻤَﺎﻥَ ﺍﻟْﺒَﺮِّﻱْ ﻣَﺎ ﺳَﺄَﻟَﻨِﻲْ ﻋَﻨْﻬَﺎ ﺃَﺣَﺪٌ ﻣِﻦْ ﺃَﻫْﻞِ ﺍﻟْﺒَﺼْﺮَﺓِ ﻓَﺨَﺮَﺟْﺖُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺃَﺻْﺒَﻬَﺎﻥَ ﻓَﺒَﺜَﺜْﺘُﻬَﺎ ﻓِﻴْﻬِﻢْ

Translation:

“I heard Abū Dāwūd say, ‘I [can] recite 30,000 narrations and there is no arrogance [in this] and in my heart there are 12,000 narrations of ‘Uthmān Al Birrī that none from the people of Baṣrah have asked me about, so I went to Aṣbahān and I narrated these narrations to them”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.383 v.9]

Abū Bakr ibn Dāsah Raḥimahullah states that he heard Abū Dāwūd Raḥimahullah (d.275 AH) say:

ﻛَﺘَﺒْﺖُ ﻋَﻦْ ﺭَﺳُﻮْﻝِ ﺍﻟﻠﻪِ ﺻَﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﺧَﻤْﺲَ ﻣِﺎﺋَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ ﺍﻧْﺘَﺨَﺒْﺖُ ﻣِﻨْﻬَﺎ ﻣَﺎ ﺿَﻤَﻨْﺘُﻪُ ﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺍﻟْﻜِﺘَﺎﺏِ ﻳَﻌْﻨِﻲْ ﻛِﺘَﺎﺏَ ” ﺍﻟﺴُّﻨَﻦِ”

Translation:

“I have written 500,000 narrations of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam, and I extracted from them that which I have placed in this book, i.e. the Sunan”

[Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī Raḥimahullah, ‘Tārikh Baghdād’, (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 2001), pg.78, v.10]

Abū ‘Imrān Aḥmad ibn Naṣr al-Khaffāf (d.299 AH)

Al-Ḥākim Raḥimahullah said:

ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺒْﻐِﻲُّ ﻏَﻴْﺮَ ﻣَﺮَّﺓٍ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻛُﻨَّﺎ ﻧَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﺇِﻥَّ ﺃَﺑَﺎ ﻋِﻤْﺮَﺍﻥَ ﻳَﻔِﻲْ ﺑِﻤُﺬَﺍﻛَﺮَﺓِ ﻣِﺌَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ

Translation:

“I heard Al-Ṣabghī say more than once, ‘We used to say that Abū ‘Imrān can recite 100,000 narrations’”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.561 v.13]

Abū Muḥammad ‘Abdān (d.306 AH)

Abū ‘Alī al-Ḥāfiẓ Raḥimahullah said:
ﻓَﺄَﻣَّﺎ ﻋَﺒْﺪَﺍﻥُ ﻓَﻜَﺎﻥَ ﻳَﺤْﻔَﻆُ ﻣِﺌَﺔَ ﺃَﻟْﻒِ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺚٍ

Translation:

“As for ‘Abdan, he had memorized 100,000 narrations (this number includes Aḥādīth with different chains of narration and the statements of the Ṣaḥābah)”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.169 v.14]

Imām Ali ibn Umar al-Daruqutnī Raḥimahullah (d.385 AH)

Abū Bakr al-Birqānī Raḥimahullah states:

ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﺍﻟﺪَّﺍﺭِﻗُﻄْﻨِﻲُّ ﻳُﻤْﻠِﻲْ ﻋَﻠَﻲَّ ﺍﻟْﻌِﻠَﻞَ ﻣِﻦْ ﺣِﻔْﻈِﻪِ

Translation:

“Al Daruqutnī dictated ‘Al ‘Ilal’ to me from his memory”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1985), pg.454 v.16]

The book ‘Al ‘Ilal’ contains well over 15,000 narrations.

A corollary principle understood from the above examples is that it is not possible to issue a ruling upon a narration simply based upon the basis that its text contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah until one has memorized equivalent to that which the scholars mentioned above had memorized; this would be a minimum of 100,000 Aḥādīth with their chains of narration. Only then could one claim that he has the right to deduce whether a narration is fabricated simply by looking at the text of the narration.

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Daqīq al-‘Ῑd Raḥimahullah (d.702 AH) writes:

ﻭَﻛَﺜِﻴْﺮًﺍ ﻣَّﺎ ﻳَﺤْﻜُﻤُﻮْﻥَ ﺑِﺬَﻟِﻚَ – ﺃَﻱْ ﺑِﺎﻟْﻮَﺿْﻊِ – ﺑِﺎِﻋْﺘِﺒَﺎﺭِ ﺃُﻣُﻮْﺭٍ ﺗَﺮْﺟِﻊُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺮْﻭِﻱِّ ﻭَﺃَﻟْﻔَﺎﻅِ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﻭَﺣَﺎﺻِﻠُﻪُ ﻳَﺮْﺟِﻊُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺃَﻧَّﻪُ ﺣَﺼَﻠَﺖْ ﻟَﻬُﻢْ ﻟِﻜَﺜْﺮَﺓِ ﻣُﺤَﺎﻭَﻟَﺔِ ﺃَﻟْﻔَﺎﻅِ ﺍﻟﻨَّﺒِﻲِّ ﺻَﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﻫَﻴْﺌَﺔٌ ﻧَﻔْﺴَﺎﻧِﻴَّﺔٌ ﻭَﻣَﻠَﻜَﺔٌ ﻗَﻮِﻳَّﺔٌ ﻳَﻌْﺮِﻓُﻮْﻥَ ﺑِﻬَﺎ ﻣَﺎ ﻳَﺠُﻮْﺯُ ﺃَﻥْ ﻳَﻜُﻮْﻥَ ﻣِﻦْ ﺃَﻟْﻔَﺎﻅِ ﺍﻟﻨُّﺒُﻮَّﺓِ ﻭَﻣَﺎ ﻟَﺎ ﻳَﺠُﻮْﺯُ

Translation:

“And many times, they (the early scholars of Ḥadīth) issue this ruling, i.e. of fabrication, in consideration of matters related to the texts of the narration and the words of the narration, and the conclusion of this returns to the fact that due to perpetual engrossment with the words of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam, they have acquired an innate nature and extraordinary ability through which they are able to recognise that which could be the Prophetic word and that which cannot”

[Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Daqīq al-‘Ῑd, ‘Al-Iqtirāḥ’, (Jordan: Dār al-‘Ulūm Lin Nashr wal-Tawzī’, 2007), pg.311-312] [‘Allāmah Sakhāwī Raḥimahullah, ‘Fatḥ al-Mugīth’, (Riyad: Dār al-Minhāj, 1436 AH), pg.128, v.2]

Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī Raḥimahullah (d.748 AH) has also echoed these sentiments in his abridgement of Al-Iqtirah, Al-Mūqiẓah ; he explains that recognizing whether a Ḥadīth contradicts the principles of Sharī‘ah (Al Qawā’id) is reserved for those who have rigorously acquainted themselves with the Aḥādīth of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam such that their expertise in Ḥadīth is like the expertise of a certified gemologist in gemstones.

[Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Mūqiẓah’, (Beirut: Dār al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyyah, 1405 AH), pg.37] [Also see the parable presented by: Ḥāfiẓ al-Mughlaṭāy, ‘Iṣlāḥ Kitāb Ibn Ṣalāḥ’, (Cairo: Al-Maktabah al-Islāmiyyah, 2007), pg.143]

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī Raḥimahullah (d.795 AH) writes while commentating upon a narration:

ﻭَﺇِﻧَّﻤَﺎ ﺗُﺤْﻤَﻞُ ﻣِﺜْﻞُ ﻫَﺬِﻩِ ﺍﻟْﺄَﺣَﺎﺩِﻳْﺚِ – ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﺗَﻘْﺪِﻳْﺮِ ﺻِﺤَّﺘِﻪِ – ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﻣَﻌْﺮِﻓَﺔِ ﺃَﺋِﻤَﺔِ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﺍﻟْﺠَﻬَﺎﺑِﺬَﺓِ ﺍﻟﻨُّﻘَّﺎﺩِ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻳْﻦَ ﻛَﺜُﺮَﺕْ ﻣُﻤَﺎﺭَﺳَﺘَﻬُﻢْ ﻟِﻜَﻠَﺎﻡِ ﺍﻟﻨَّﺒِﻲِّ ﺻَﻠَﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﻭَﻛَﻠَﺎﻡِ ﻏَﻴْﺮِﻩِ ﻭَﻟِﺤَﺎﻝِ ﺭُﻭَﺍﺓِ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﻭَﻧَﻘْﻠَﺔِ ﺍﻟْﺄَﺧْﺒَﺎﺭِ ﻭَﻣَﻌْﺮِﻓَﺘِﻬِﻢْ ﺑِﺼِﺪْﻗِﻬِﻢْ ﻭَﻛَﺬِﺑِﻬِﻢْ ﻭَﺣِﻔْﻈِﻬِﻢْ ﻭَﺿَﺒْﻄِﻬِﻢْ ﻓَﺈِﻥَّ ﻫَﺆُﻟَﺎﺀِ ﻟَﻬُﻢْ ﻧَﻘْﺪٌ ﺧَﺎﺹٌّ ﻳَﺨْﺘَﺼُّﻮْﻥَ ﺑِﻤَﻌْﺮِﻓَﺘِﻪِ ﻛَﻤَﺎ ﻳَﺨْﺘَﺺُّ ﺍﻟﺼَّﻴْﺮَﻓِﻲُّ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺎﺫِﻕُ ﺑِﻤَﻌْﺮِﻓَﺔِ ﺍﻟﻨُّﻘُﻮْﺩِ ﺟَﻴِّﺪِﻫَﺎ ﻭَﺭَﺩِﻳْﺌِﻬَﺎ

Translation:

“And indeed, narrations such as this – if authentic – are based upon the knowledge of the meticulous and assiduous Imāms of the Prophetic narration, whose engagement with the narrations of the Prophet Ṣallallāhu ‘Alayhi Wasallam and the narrations of others (such as the Ṣaḥābah and Tābi‘ūn) is intense, as well as their engagement with the status of the narrators of Ḥadīth and the recorders of the narrations, as well as their knowledge of the truthfulness and untruthfulness [of the narrators of Ḥadīth], and the memory and recollection [of the narrators of Ḥadīth], for indeed, these [Imāms] have a specialised method of criticism that only they are capable of, just as a certified money-exchanger specialises in the knowledge of coins; in recognizing the reliable [coins] from the counterfeit [coins]”

[Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī Raḥimahullah, ‘Jāmi‘al-‘Ulūm wal-Ḥikam’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1999), pg.105, v.2] [Also see: Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir, ‘Footnotes on Ṣaḥiḥ Ibn Ḥibbān’, (Egypt: Dār al-Ma‘ārif), pg.221, v.1]

It was for this reason that Ḥāfiẓ Al-‘Alā’ī Raḥimahullah (d.761 AH) said:

ﺍﻟْﺤُﻜْﻢُ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﺑِﻜَﻮْﻧِﻪِ ﻣَﻮْﺿُﻮْﻋًﺎ ﻣِﻦَ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺘَﺄَﺧِّﺮِﻳْﻦَ ﻋَﺴِﺮٌ ﺟِﺪًّﺍ ﻟِﺄَﻥَّ ﺫَﻟِﻚَ ﻟَﺎ ﻳَﺘَﺄَﺗَّﻰ ﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﺑَﻌْﺪَ ﺟَﻤْﻊِ ﺍﻟﻄُّﺮُﻕِ ﻭَﻛَﺜْﺮَﺓِ ﺍﻟﺘَّﻔْﺘِﻴْﺶِ … ﻭَﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺑِﺨِﻠَﺎﻑِ ﺍﻟْﺄَﺋِﻤَّﺔِ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺘَﻘَﺪِّﻣِﻴْﻦَ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻳْﻦَ ﻣَﻨَﺤَﻬُﻢُ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﺍﻟﺘَّﺒَﺤُّﺮَ ﻓِﻲْ ﻋِﻠْﻢِ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﻭَﺍﻟﺘَّﻮَﺳُّﻊِ ﻓِﻲْ ﺣِﻔْﻈِﻪِ ﻛَﺸُﻌْﺒَﺔَ ﻭَﻳَﺤْﻴَﻰ ﺑْﻦِ ﺳَﻌِﻴْﺪِ ﺍﻟْﻘَﻄَّﺎﻥِ ﻭَﻋَﺒْﺪِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺣْﻤَﻦِ ﺑْﻦِ ﻣَﻬْﺪِﻱْ ﻭَﻧَﺤْﻮِﻫِﻢْ ﺛُﻢَّ ﺃَﺻْﺤَﺎﺑِﻬِﻢْ ﻣِﺜْﻞِ ﺃَﺣْﻤَﺪَ ﺑِﻦْ ﺣَﻨْﺒَﻞَ ﻭَﻋَﻠِﻲِّ ﺑْﻦِ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺪِﻳْﻨِﻲِّ ﻭَﻳَﺤْﻴَﻰ ﺑْﻦِ ﻣَﻌِﻴْﻦَ ﻭَﺇِﺳْﺤَﺎﻕِ ﺑْﻦِ ﺭَﺍﻫْﻮِﻳْﻪ ﻭَﻃَﺎﺋِﻔَﺘِﻬِﻢْ ﺛُﻢَّ ﺃَﺻْﺤَﺎﺑِﻬِﻢْ ﻣِﺜْﻞِ ﺍﻟْﺒُﺨَﺎﺭِﻱِّ ﻭَﻣُﺴْﻠِﻢٍ ﻭَﺃَﺑِﻲْ ﺩَﺍﻭُﺩَ ﻭَﺍﻟﺘَّﺮْﻣِﺬِﻱِّ ﻭَﺍﻟﻨَّﺴَﺎﺋِﻲِّ ﻭَﻛَﺬَﻟِﻚَ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺯَﻣَﻦِ ﺍﻟﺪَّﺍﺭِﻗُﻄْﻨِﻲِّ ﻭَﺍﻟْﺒَﻴْﻬَﻘِﻲِّ ﻣِﻤَّﻦْ ﻟَﻢْ ﻳَﺠِﻴْﺊ ﺑَﻌْﺪَﻫُﻢْ ﻣُﺴَﺎﻭٍ ﻟَﻬُﻢْ ﺑَﻞْ ﻭَﻟَﺎ ﻣُﻘَﺎﺭِﺏٍ

Translation:

“To rule a narration as fabricated is extremely difficult for the later scholars, as such a ruling cannot be placed except after gathering all of the chains of narration and after extensive investigation…and this is in contrast to the earlier scholars, those whom Allah blessed with profound knowledge of the field of Ḥadīth and vastness in memorising [the narrations], such as Shu‘bah, Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd Al Qaṭtān, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī, and others like them, then their companions, such as Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī, Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn, Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh, and their group, then their companions, such as Al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, Tirmidhī, like this until the age of Al-Daruquṭnī and Al-Bayhaqī, who were from amongst those whom none came after them that were capable of equaling them or coming close to them”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al-‘Alā’ī, ‘Al-Naqd al-Ṣarīḥ Limā U’turiḍa ‘Alayh Min Aḥādīth al-Maṣābīḥ – Majmū’ Rasā’il Ḥāfiẓ Al-‘Alā’ī’, (Cairo: Al-Fārūq al-Ḥadīthiyyah, 2013), pg.72, v.4] [See: ‘Allāmah Badr al-Dīn al-Zarkashī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Nukat ‘Alā Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ’, (Riyad: Aḍwā al-Salaf, 1998), pg.267, v.2]

The early scholars – who were afforded this privilege of being able to deduce whether a narration is fabricated or not by looking at its text due to their
profound knowledge of Sharī’ah – had not only memorised hundreds of thousands of Aḥādīth, they had even memorized the wordings of the chain of narration. Consider the following example:

ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺧَﻠْﻒُ ‏( ﺑْﻦُ ﺳَﺎﻟِﻢٍ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺨْﺮَﻣِﻲُّ ‏) ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﺳُﻔْﻴَﺎﻥَ ﺑْﻦَ ﻋُﻴَﻴْﻨَﺔَ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻝُ ﻧَﺎ ﻋَﻤْﺮُﻭ ﺑْﻦُ ﺩِﻳْﻨَﺎﺭٍ ﻳُﺮِﻳْﺪُ ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ﻋَﻤْﺮٌﻭ ﺑْﻦُ ﺩِﻳْﻨَﺎﺭٍ ﻓَﺈِﺫَﺍ ﻗِﻴْﻞَ ﻟﺨَﻠَﻒ ﻗُﻞْ ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ﻋَﻤْﺮٌﻭ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﻟَﺎ ﺃَﻗُﻮْﻝُ ﻟِﺄَﻧِّﻲْ ﻟَﻢْ ﺃَﺳْﻤَﻊْ ﻣِﻦْ ﻗَﻮْﻟِﻪِ ” ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ” ﺛَﻠَﺎﺛَﺔَ ﺃَﺣْﺮُﻑٍ ﻟِﻜَﺜْﺮَﺓِ ﺍﻟﺰِّﺣَﺎﻡِ ﻭَﻫِﻲَ ﺡَ ﺩَّ ﺙَ

Translation:

“Khalaf (Sālim al-Mukharrimī) said, ‘I heard Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah say, ‘To us ‘Amr ibn Dīnār’, intending by this ‘Narrated to us ‘Amr ibn Dīnār’, thus when it was asked of him (i.e of Khalaf), ‘[Why don’t you] say, “Narrated to us ‘Amr”’, he replied, ‘I will not say [that] for indeed I did not hear from his (Sufyān ibn ‘Uyanah’s) statement ‘Narrated to us’ three letters; ﺡ ﺩ ﺙ (which translates to: Narrated) due to a loud noise”

[Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Kifāyah Fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah’, (n.a: Dār al-Hudā, 2003), v.1, pg.242]

The dedication and engrossment of the scholars of the past in memorizing and narrating Aḥādīth may be understood from the story of Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān al-Bāgandī Raḥimahullah (d.312 AH). ‘Umar ibn Aḥmad al-Wā‘iẓ Raḥimahullah states:

ﻗَﺎﻡَ ﺃَﺑُﻮْ ﺑَﻜْﺮٍ ﺍﻟْﺒَﺎﻏَﻨْﺪِﻱُّ ﻟِﻴُﺼَﻠِّﻲَ ﻓَﻜَﺒَّﺮَ ﺛُﻢَّ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ﻣُﺤَﻤَّﺪُ ﺑْﻦُ ﺳُﻠَﻴْﻤَﺎﻥَ ﻟُﻮَﻳْﻦُ ﻓَﺴَﺒَّﺤْﻨَﺎ ﺑِﻪِ ﻓَﻘَﺎﻝَ ” ﺑِﺴْﻢِ ﺍﻟﻠﻪِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺣْﻤَﻦِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺣِﻴْﻢِ ﺍﻟْﺤَﻤْﺪُ ﻟِﻠﻪِ ﺭَﺏِّ ﺍﻟْﻌَﺎﻟَﻤِﻴْﻦَ ”

Translation:

“Abū Bakr al-Bāgandī stood up to perform Salah, he read aloud the Takbīr, then said, ‘Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān Luwayn has narrated to us’, so we began to recite the Tasbīḥ (in order to alert him of the mistake), and so he began to read, ‘Bismillāhir Raḥmānir Raḥīm Alḥamdulillāhi Rabbil ‘Ālamīn’”

[Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī Raḥimahullah, ‘Tārikh Baghdād’, (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 2001), pg.345, v.4]

It was through this incredible engrossment with Ḥadīth that these few eminent scholars of the past developed profound knowledge of Sharī‘ah and its principles. Their entire days and nights were dedicated to Aḥādīth.
In conclusion, the notion of issuing a ruling on a narration based upon when the text of the narration is contradicting a principle of Sharī‘ah was a privilege reserved only for a few selected scholars of Islām, whose knowledge of Sharī‘ah was of the caliber that we have demonstrated above.

Was it easy for the scholars of the past to deduce whether a narration contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah?

Even during the age of these privileged scholars of Islām , to issue a ruling of fabrication upon the authenticity of a narration because it contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah was not an easy task.

The authoritative scholar, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajr al-‘Asqalānī Raḥimahullah (d.882 AH), writes:

ﻭَﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺍﻟْﻔَﻦُّ ﺃَﻏْﻤَﺾُ ﺃَﻧْﻮَﺍﻉِ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﻭَﺃَﺩَﻗِّﻬَﺎ ﻣَﺴْﻠَﻜًﺎ ﻭَﻟَﺎ ﻳَﻘُﻮْﻡُ ﺑِﻪِ ﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﻣَﻦْ ﻣَﻨَﺤَﻪُ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﺗَﻌَﺎﻟَﻰ ﻓَﻬْﻤًﺎ ﻏَﺎﻳِﺼًﺎ ﻭَﺍﻃِّﻠَﺎﻋًﺎ ﺣَﺎﻭِﻳًﺎ ﻭَﺇِﺩْﺭَﺍﻛًﺎ ﻟِﻤَﺮَﺍﺗِﺐِ ﺍﻟﺮُّﻭَﺍﺓِ ﻭَﻣَﻌْﺮِﻓَﺔٍ ﺛَﺎﻗِﺒَﺔٍ ﻭَﻟِﻬَﺬَﺍ ﻟَﻢْ ﻳَﺘَﻜَﻠَّﻢْ ﻓِﻴْﻪِ ﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﺃَﻓْﺮَﺍﺩُ ﺃَﺋِﻤَّﺔِ ﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺄْﻥِ ﻭَﺣُﺬَّﺍﻗِﻬِﻢْ ﻭَﺇِﻟَﻴْﻬِﻢُ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺮْﺟَﻊُ ﻓِﻲْ ﺫَﻟِﻚَ ﻟِﻤَﺎ ﺟَﻌَﻞَ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻓِﻴْﻬِﻢْ ﻣِﻦْ ﻣَﻌْﺮِﻓَﺔِ ﺫَﻟِﻚَ ﻭَﺍﻟْﺈِﻃِّﻠَﺎﻉِ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﻏَﻮَﺍﻣِﻀِﻪِ ﺩُﻭْﻥَ ﻏَﻴْﺮِﻫِﻢْ ﻣِﻤَّﻦْ ﻟَﻢْ ﻳُﻤَﺎﺭِﺱْ ﺫَﻟِﻚَ

Translation:

“And this field (the field of Al ‘Ilal) is the most complex of the fields of Ḥadīth, and the most delicate to approach, and none have stood up to it except those whom Allah the Almighty blessed with a deep understanding, encompassing research, knowledge of the categories of narrations, and a sagacious intellect. It is for this reason that none spoke in this [field] except a few of the scholars of Ḥadīth and its most intelligent personalities, and reliance is upon them in this field, due to that which Allah had given to them from the knowledge of this [field] and research upon its intricacies, none besides them from amongst those who have not acquired this”

[Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajr Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Nukat ‘Alā Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ’, (Ajman: Maktabah al-Furqān, 2003), pg.187, v.2]

There are examples of early scholars who criticized the text of a narration based upon their understanding of the narration (as they felt that it contradicted the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah) but were then refuted by other early scholars of their caliber who understood the correct meaning of the Ḥadīth and found no qualms in its connotations.

[See: Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar Raḥimahullah, ‘ Lisān al-Mīzān ’, (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāir al-Islāmiyyah, 2002), pg.180, v.4 – entry: Sulayman ibn Harim]

[See: Ḥāfiẓ al-Zayla‘ī Raḥimahullah, ‘ Naṣb al-Rāyah ’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Rayyān, 1997), pg.174, v.4]

[See: Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘ Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā ’, (Beirut: Mu’assash al-Risalah, 1984), pg.98, v.16]

[See: Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘ Mīzān Al I’tidāl ’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah,), pg.101, v.2 – entry: Zayd ibn Wahab]

[See: Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar Raḥimahullah, ‘ Lisān al-Mīzān ’, (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāir al-Islāmiyyah, 2002), pg.222, v.1 – entry: Abān ibn Sufyān]

[See: Al-Jawraqānī Raḥimahullah, ‘ Al-Abāṭīl wal-Manākīr wal-Ṣiḥāḥ wal-Mashāhīr ’, (India: Idarah al-Buhuth, 1983), pg.80, v.1]

[See: ‘Allamah Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi Rahimahullah, ‘Al-Nukat ‘Ala Ibn al-Salah ’, (Riyad: Adwa al-Salaf, 1998), pg.270, v.2]

[See: Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar Raḥimahullah, ‘ Fatḥ al-Bārī ’, (Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Ṣalafiyyah), pg.16, v.7]

[See: Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar Raḥimahullah, ‘ Fatḥ al-Bārī ’, (Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Ṣalafiyyah), pg.401, v.13]

Accordingly, memorization of Aḥādīth alone is not enough; rather, one is also required to have an expert understanding of the teachings of Sharī‘ah and the Aḥādīth that he has memorised.

‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī Raḥimahullah (d.234 AH) said:

ﺍﻟﺘَّﻔًﻘُّﻪُ ﻓِﻲْ ﻣَﻌَﺎﻧِﻲ ﺍﻟْﺤَﺪِﻳْﺚِ ﻧِﺼْﻒُ ﺍﻟْﻌِﻠْﻢِ

Translation:

“Understanding of the meanings of Ḥadīth is half of knowledge”

[Ḥāfiẓ Al Dhahabī Raḥimahullah, ‘Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā’, (Beirut: Mu’assasah Al Risālah, 1985), v.11, pg.48]

In conclusion, determining whether a Ḥadīth contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah was solely reserved for those illustrious scholars of the past whose knowledge of Sharī‘ah was so profound, that they could at will recite hundreds of thousands of Aḥādīth with their chain of narration; the likes of Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal Raḥimahullah (d.241 AH), Imām Al-Bukhārī Raḥimahullah (d.256 AH), et al. These scholars were also blessed with an incredible understanding of the Aḥādīth that they had memorized.

As for the guidelines presented by the likes of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah Raḥimahullah (d.751 AH) in his Al-Manār al-Munīf and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi Raḥimahullah (d.606 AH) in his Al-Maḥṣūl for recognizing a fabricated narration, then these guidelines are no different to Fiqh Maxims ( Al-Qawaid al-Fiqhiyyah ), in the sense that a narration cannot be labeled a fabrication simply based upon these guidelines just as a Fatwa cannot be issued based upon Fiqh Maxims ( Al-Qawāid al-Fiqhiyyah ), rather, the rulings of the expert scholars of the past must be followed.

Thus, a claim that a certain Ḥadīth should be rejected because it contradicts the principles and objectives of Islām may be refuted with the question; exactly how many Aḥādīth have you memorized with their chains of narration for you to claim that you have knowledge of the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah?

Conclusion

Above, we have demonstrated the role of the intellect/reason in Sharī‘ah and the role of the intellect/reason in the noble Aḥādīth. We have shown that the scholars did not at all permit rejecting Aḥādīth that herald an element of miracles.

We have also shown that criticising the authenticity of a narration based upon the fact that the text of the narration contradicts the principles and objectives of Sharī‘ah such that it cannot be the Prophet word was an incredibly delicate task, which only a select few privileged scholars were able to do. We are required to follow their rulings.

Indeed, the scholars of Ḥadīth emphasized incredible precaution before labeling a narration as a fabrication [See: Jālāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Baḥr al-Ladhī Zakhar’, (Madinah: Maktabah al-Ghurabā al-Athariyyah, 1999), pg.874-876, v.2]. This precaution was burgeoned when the chain of narration contained reliable narrators, in such a case – when the narrators of the narration are all reliable – only the elite scholars of the past could criticize the authenticity of the narration. [See: Ḥātim al-‘Awnī, ‘Sharḥ Mūqiẓah al-Dhahabī’, (Riyad: Dār Ibn al-Jawzī, 1427 AH), pg.62: Fa Innanā La Naḥkum ‘Alayhi Bil Waḍ‘i Illā Bi Qarā’in Qawiyyah Jiddan ] .

We end with a quote from the Yemeni scholar, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Yaḥyā al-Mu‘allimī Raḥimahullah (d.1386 AH), who said:

ﻭَﺍﻟْﺤَﻖُّ ﺃَﻧَّﻪُ ﻟَﻢْ ﻳَﻜُﻦْ ﻓِﻲ ﻋُﻠَﻤَﺎﺀِ ﺍﻟْﺄُﻣَّﺔِ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺮْﺿِﻴِّﻴْﻦَ ﻣَﻦْ ﻳَﺮُﺩُّ ﺣَﺪِﻳْﺜًﺎ ﺑَﻠَﻐَﻪُ ﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﻟِﻌُﺬْﺭٍ ﻳَﺤْﺘَﻤِﻠُﻪُ ﻟَﻪُ ﺃَﻛْﺜَﺮُ ﺃَﻫْﻞِ ﺍﻟْﻌِﻠْﻢِ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﺍﻟْﺄَﻗَﻞِّ

Translation:

“And indeed, the reality is that there was none from the accepted scholars of the past who labelled a narration that reached him as a fabrication except that he did so due to a reason that, at the very least, the majority of the scholars would accept [as a valid reason]”

[Shaykh ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Yaḥyā al-Mu‘allimī Raḥimahullah, ‘Al-Anwār al-Kāshifah’, (Makah: Dār ‘Alam Al-Fawā’id, 1434 AH), pg.17]

Every individual must ask himself; if the illustrious scholars of the past – who were of the calibre that we have demonstrated above (i.e. hundreds of thousands of Aḥādīth flowed at their fingertips) and whose days and nights were spent in the sciences of the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth – have authenticated a Ḥadīth, how can a person in this day and age claim that the Ḥadīth is fabricated? Only if an individual has memorised the number of Aḥādīth that they had memorised could one come even close to making such a claim.

These perspicacious and astute scholars, the likes of Imām Al-Bukhari Raḥimahullah (d.256 AH) and Imām Muslim Raḥimahullah (d.261 AH), did not simply dedicate a portion of their life to the field of Ḥadīth; they dedicated their entire lives to the field of Ḥadīth. Indeed, a person’s Ῑmān remains protected by relying on the deductions and rulings of these meticulous and accepted scholars of the past. Following the ramblings and isolated opinions of the iconoclasts of today can only lead to misguidance.

May Allah guide us and protect us.

Aameen.

Difference between Seerah & Hadith

If Seerah  i.e. Biography of the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) is defined as the life or way the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) lived, then what is the difference between Seerah and Hadith [1] or even the Sunnah [2]?

The Seerah is a collection of narrations about the people and events surrounding the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) arranged in a chronological order. The amount of rigor put into authenticating and analyzing the chains and narrators [3] of an incident or event that is found in the Seerah is far lower than when a narration is used in the Sunnah or Hadith. Only the top of the top narrations, namely Sahih [4] or  Hasan [5] are used in the books of Hadith and Sunnah. As for Seerah this is not the case, the narrations used include all the authentic and acceptable ones, along with ones with weaknesses. The reason for including these weaker narrations is in order to fill in gapes or holes in the story. The reason we do this is because if we were to be just as strict and apply the same rules in accepting narrations in the Seerah as Hadith then, this would mean that we wouldn’t be able to get narrations about the status of the Arabs, and the forefathers of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) because everyone who narrated them were Non-Muslims. Examples of this are the narrations about the Story of the Feel (Elephant) [6], and the incident of ‘Amr Ibn Luhayy Al-Khuza’i[7], or even the life of Abdul Muttallib[8].So, since we use weaker narrations in Seerah, we can not use the seerah as evidence to support rulings and beliefs found in fiqh [9] (Islamic Juriprudence) or aqeedah [10] (Islamic Belief). We cannot derive rulings of fiqh or aqeedah from the Seerah.

So in conclusion, we cannot derive or use as our proof for our worship, our beliefs or our methodology from the seerah alone, we have to use the authentic Sunnah as our primary reference and not rely upon seerah alone.

From this we can say that scholars of seerah like Ibn Is’haaq [11], specialized in seerah out of all the sciences of Islam, and this is true for most of the scholars. Each and every scholar has a specialty in a certain field of Islam. Just like a person usually doesn’t specialize in engineering and also medicine, this is the case with Islam, some people specialize in hadith and are called muhadditheen [12] (sing. muhaddith) and some people specialize in fiqh and are called fuqahaa [13] (sing. faqeeh).
Ibn Is’haaq’s speciality was seerah therefore he was abandoned by the scholars of hadith when it came to narrating hadith and a reason for this might be because he might include those weaker narrations while he narrated the hadith.

Also Read:- Difference between Ahadith Narrations & Historical Reports

Footnotes

[1]. Literally – something that is a statement, communication, or story, or if used as an adjective it means new. In the Shari’ perspective it is a statement of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).

[2]. Literally it means a way, in the Islamic Sciences perspective it means the way of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam), it is had different definitions based on which type of scholar uses it.

[3]. Chain (Arabic is isnad) and Narrators (Arabic is rijaal) – used in the Sciences of the authentication or rejection of hadith.

[4]. Sahih – a hadith that is authentic based on its chain of narrators. Accepted as a source of Shari’ah in Islam.

[5]. Hasan – a hadith that is good based on its chain of narrators. Accepted as a source of Shareeah in Islam.

[6]. The Story of the Elephant or Feel is mentioned in the Qur’aan
in Chapter (Surah) 105. It happened the year the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) was born. It was an event where the king of Yemen tried to destroy the Ka’ba in Makkah by bringing elephants from Ethiopia, but were unsuccessful due to a miracle from Allah.

[7]. This person was a chief of Khuza’ah. He was known for his righteousness, piety, and care for religion, but he went to Syria for a trip and saw them worshipping idols, and adopted this practice and brought it to his lands, and then the Ka’bah, and this being the center of religion of Arabia, this practice spread like wildfire over the years. This was the main reason for the spread of idolatry in the Arabian Peninsula. A more post on this topic will be posted soon, InshaAllah.

[8]. He was the grandfather of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and took care of him in his early childhood.

[10]. Islamic Jurisprudence – the rules and conditions surrounding the physical acts of worship the Muslim does, and the obligatory, permitted, and forbidden things in Islam.

[11]. Islamic theology, or Islamic beliefs that a person has that makes him a Muslim.

[12]. The greatest scholar of the Seerah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam), his work was used as a basis of later works about the Seerah.

[13]. Scholars of hadith and its sciences.

[14]. The scholars that are proficient and specialize in the science of fiqh

Unacceptable Narrator Criticism in the Science of Hadith

By ‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Lukhnawi 

image

Translated by Ali Godil 

[Translator’s note: ‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Hayy Lukhnawi wrote this treatise more than one hundred years ago in the context of some ‘ulama, particularly those of the Ahl al-Hadith movement, using the statements of the early hadith scholars, to disparage and declare unreliable certain great imams. This topic is even more poignant in our modern context, because although such discussions were limited to scholars and students of knowledge in the past, now every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a broadband connection, upon reading an article, listening to a lecture, or attending a weekend crash course on ‘ulum al-hadith (hadith sciences) deems himself worthy of declaring an imam like Abu Hanifah (Allah be pleased with him) an unreliable narrator.

As the author so effectively displays, this brashness in passing judgment on great figures in Islamic history stems largely from a lack of precision in understanding the hadith sciences. As in every science, the rules have certain conditions and nuances, and it is not enough to simply read a book on one’s own and take a maxim like “jarh mufassar is given preference over ta’dil” and unleash one’s pen on the imams. Rather, this is a complex field that requires training at the hands of a master.  As the old adage goes, ‘A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.’

Due to the above, I felt that the following chapter would be particularly relevant to our context and would perhaps deter certain bold individuals from making their tongues and their pens a means of their own destruction.]

Warning Twenty-Five:

If jarh (narrator criticism) is issued due to partisanship, enmity, loathing, or the likes, then it is rejected, and only he who is rejected relies on it. In light of this, the statement of Imam Malik regarding Muhammad ibn Ishaq, the author of Al-Maghazi, that he is a dajjal from amongst the dajjals, was not accepted, since it is known that it stemmed from clear animosity. Rather, they (the imams of jarh wa ta’dil) affirmed that he was hasan al-hadith (an acceptable narrator), and the imams of hadith used him as a proof. I have dealt with this issue more thoroughly in my treatise, Imam al-Kalam fi ma Yata’allaqu bi ‘l-Qira’ah Khalf ‘l-Imam. Likewise, Al-Nasa’i’s censure of Ahmad ibn Salih al-Misri, Al-Thawri’s censure of Abu Hanifah al-Kufi, Ibn Ma’in’s censure of Al-Shaf’i, Ahmad’s censure of Al-Harith al-Muhasibi, and Ibn Mandah’s censure of Abu Nu’aym al-Asbahani are not accepted, due to the same reason. There are many similar examples in the famous books of this discipline.

Hence, the scholars stated, “One’s criticism of a contemporary is not accepted.” That is, if it is without evidence, because being a contemporary often leads to personal animosity.

We should mention excerpts from the writings of the reviewers (nuqqad) of hadith, so as to quell the attacks of corrupt individuals, for indeed, many of them caused corruption in the religion, brought destruction on others and themselves through criticizing the imams of the religion, were misguided and misguided others through their defamation of the elders of the pious predecessors (salaf) and the greatest of the khalaf, due to their unawareness of the fundamental rules and principles compressed in the books of the religion. A large group of the scholars of our time, although known for great virtues, have been afflicted with this calamity, and the masses, who are like livestock, emulated them in this regard; rather, they added a note to the lute and darkness to the gloom (i.e. they made the situation worse). Since Allah had given them the tawfiq (ability) to study the books of history and rijal, but did not give them the tawfiq to delve deeply into and become acquainted with that with which the hadith critics paved the way, they became bold, hasty, neglectful, antagonistic, and unleashed criticism on the reliable imams and those whose greatness has been established, borrowing from what was published regarding them by their contemporaries and opponents, or their enemies and degraders, or those who opposed them due to obstinacy or bigotry.

So, the intelligent person should be wary of being duped and captivated by this recklessness, and from being amongst the, “Greatest losers in regard to their works; those whose effort goes astray in the life of this world, while they reckon they are doing good work.” [Qur’an 18:103[

Al-Dhahabi states in Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’ regarding the great exegete, Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Hatim al-Baghdadi (d. 235 AH), “Ibn ‘Adi and Al-Daraqutni declared him trustworthy, and Abu Hafs al-Fallas mentioned him stating, ‘He is nothing.’  I say that this is from the speech of peers, which is not to be given any heed, for the man is reliable and a proof (hujjah). 

He further states regarding the biography of Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani (d. 316 AH) in his bookTadhkirah al-Huffaz, after mentioning his being declared trustworthy (thiqah) by a group of reliable hadith scholars and his being weakened by Ibn Sa’id and others: “I say that it is not befitting to accept the statement of Ibn Sa’id regarding him, just as we do not give any consideration to his (Al-Sijistani’s) declaring Ibn Sa’id a liar, and likewise, the speech of Ibn Jarir against him is not given any heed, since there was clear enmity between them, so refrain from the speech of peers against one another.”

He states regarding the biography of ‘Affan al-Saffar in Al-Mizan, “The speech of contemporaries and peers requires deep reflection and careful deliberation.”

He states regarding the biography of Abu al-Zinad ‘Abdullah ibn Dhakwan, “Rabi’ah states regarding him, ‘He is not trustworthy,’ I say that Rabi’ah’s statement concerning him should not be given any regard, since there was clear enmity between them.”

He states regarding the biography of Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yahya, Abu ‘Abdullah, known as Ibn Mandah al-Asbahani, “Hafiz Abu Nu’aym used harsh language when criticizing him, due to some alienation between them, and he hurled accusations against him, so this is not given any consideration, due to major disputes between them, for Ibn Mandah also spoke against and abused Abu Nu’aym.”

He also states regarding the biography of Hafiz Abu Nu’aym Ahmad ibn ‘Abdullah al-Asfahani, “The speech of Ibn Mandah regarding Abu Nu’aym is dreadful, and I do not like relating it, nor do I accept the speech of either one of them regarding the other, and they are both agreeable according to me; I do not know them to have any fault greater than narrating fabricated hadiths while remaining silent about them.”

I read in the handwriting of Hafiz Yusuf ibn Ahmad al-Shirazi, “I read in the handwriting of Tahir al-Maqdisi, stating, ‘May Allah distress Abu Nu’aym for speaking against Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Mandah, while the people have reached a consensus regarding his status as an imam.’ I say the speech of peers against one another is not given any attention, especially if it becomes clear that it is a result of personal animosity, partisanship against a particular school of thought, or jealousy.  None is free of this trait except he whom Allah protects, and I do not know of any time in which the people of that time were safe from this trait save the prophets and the siddiqin, and if I wished to, I could fill many books expounding upon this topic.”

It is stated in Fath al-Mughith, “Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr dedicated an entire chapter to discussing the speech of contemporaries against one another in his Jami’, and I view that the criticism of the people of knowledge is not accepted except when it is manifest and clear, and if there is any sort of personal animosity attached to it, then it is preferable not to accept it.”

It is stated in Al-Taj al-Subki’s Tabaqat al-Shaf’iyyah, “It would behoove you, oh seeker, to tread the path of etiquette with the past imams and not to give consideration to the speech of some of them against others, except if they bring clear proof.  Subsequently, if you are able to give an alternate explanation or interpret the criticism in a more favorable way, then do so.  If not, then devote one page to what took place between them and move on, for you were not created for this. Busy yourself with that which concerns you and leave that which does not. A student of knowledge remains noble until he delves into that which occurred between the early scholars. You must be beware of devoting your attention to the disputes that took place between Abu Hanifah and Sufiyan al-Thawri, Malik and Ibn Abi Dhi’b, Ahmad ibn Salih and Al-Nasa’i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Al-Harith al-Muhasibi, and so on, until the time of Al-’Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salam and Al-Taqi ibn al-Salah, because if you busied yourself with that, I fear for your destruction, for those men are the eminent imams, and their statements have proper interpretations, some of which we may not have understood, so we should be pleased with them and remain silent about what occurred between them, just as is done regarding the disputes that occurred amongst the Companions (sahabah), may Allah be pleased with them.”

It is also stated in the same book, “One must be wary of understanding the maxim ‘criticism (jarh) is given precedence over accreditation (ta’dil)‘ in the absolute sense.  Rather, the correct opinion is that for the one who’s status as an imam and integrity is established, and his acclaimers are many and his critics are few, and there is an inference (qarinah) indicating that the criticism stemmed from sectarian partisanship or the likes of it, this criticism is not given any heed.”

It also states, “We have informed you that a person’s criticism is not accepted, even if he explained it (i.e. jarh mufassir), if it is against one whose good deeds are far more prevalent than his sins, and those who praise him are far more prevalent than those who dispraise him, and those who vindicate and recommend him are far more prevalent than those who criticize him, if there is an indication that something drove the critic to defame this individual, such as sectarian partisanship, worldly competition, or another reason, as often occurs between peers.  Therefore, one should not entertain the speech of Al-Thawri against Abu Hanifah, Ibn Abi Dhi’b and others against Malik, Ibn Ma’in against Al-Shaf’i, Al-Nasa’i against Ahmad ibn Salih, etc.  If we gave preference to criticism over praise, than no imamwould remain untouched, because there is no imam except that he has been criticized or attacked.”

It is stated in Ibn Hajr al-Makki’s Al-Khayrat al-Hisan fi Manaqib al-Nu’man, in the thirty-ninth chapter, answering what Al-Khatib related in his Tarikh from those who defame Abu Hanifah, “Know that his (Al-Khatib’s) only intention was to gather everything that was said regarding the man, as is the habit of historians, and he did not intend to belittle him (Abu Hanifah) or lower his status, as is evidenced by his first mentioning the speech in favor of him, along with his achievements, copiously, then following up with the speech of his defamers against him.

“Another evidence for this assertion is that the majority of the chains of narration he mentioned regarding the dispraise of Abu Hanifah are not free of criticized or unknown narrators, and by consensus, it is not permissible to impugn the honor of an ordinary Muslim through such narrations, let alone an imam of the Muslims. If one assumes that the dispraise Al-Khatib mentioned is authentically related from those who stated it, it is still not given any consideration, for even if the criticism came from those who were not peers of the imam, they were merely following that which the imam’s enemies said or wrote before them, and likewise, the criticism is not entertained if it came from his peers, because, from what mentioned previously, the speech of peers against one another is not accepted, as was proclaimed by Hafiz al-Dhahabi and Hafiz ibn Hajr [‘Asqalani].”

Additional Benefit:

The scholars have proclaimed that the speech of an individual against his contemporary is not accepted.  However, this rule is restricted to that criticism which is issued without proof or evidence and stems from bigotry or personal enmity.   Otherwise, it is accepted without doubt, and you should remember this rule, for it will benefit you in this world and the Hereafter.

[Al-Lukhnawi, ‘Abd al-Hayy. Al-Raf’ Wa Al-Takmil. 8th ed. Beirut: Maktab Al-Matbu’at Al-Islamiyyah, 2004. Print].

Severity on Narrating Fabricated Reports on the Praise of the Prophet ﷺ

by Mawlana ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Lakhnawi 

Translated by Zameelur Rahman

Know that the fuqaha and the muhaddithun in their entirety have clarified in their books that it is prohibited to narrate, cite and transmit fabricated (mawdu’) [hadiths], and act upon its purport while believing it to be established, except with a warning that it is fabricated. Leniency (tasahul) in this [matter] is prohibited, whether [the fabricated hadith is] in regards to laws (ahkam), stories (qisas), inducing hope and fear (al-targhib wa l-tarhib) or anything else. Imitating (taqlid) [others] in mentioning and transmitting it is prohibited unless followed by an explanation of its fabrication, as opposed to a da’if  hadith, since if that is not in regards to laws, there is leniency therein, and it is acceptable with numerous conditions which I have elaborated in my footnotes to my treatise Tuhfat al-Talabah fi Mash al-Raqabah called Tuhfat al-Kamulah and in my treatise Al-Ajwibat al-Fadilah li l-As’ilat al-‘Asharat al-Kamilah.

They [the fuqaha and the muhaddithun] have also explained that to lie about the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is one of the greatest of the major sins, rather some of the Shafi’is exaggerated and ruled it to be kufr. That is because sahih hadiths have been narrated with various wordings indicating what we mentioned. The most well-known of them has the wording: “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.” It has many routes such that it was said that it is from the mutawatir hadiths. I have expanded on this discussion in [a manner] not [requiring] further

to it in Zafar al-Amani fi l-Mukhtasar al-Mansub ila l-Jurjani in the discussion on mutawatir, Allah enable us to complete it as He enabled us to start it, and if Allah gives expanse in my life and assists in my ability, I will complete it after finishing writing up this treatise, if Allah (Exalted is He) wills.

‘Ali al-Qari al-Makki said in Kitab al-Mawdu’at:

Moreover, the meaning of that which the two shaykhs [i.e. Al-Bukhari and Muslim] and Al-Hakim transmitted from Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him), “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire,” is mutawatir and this form is almost mutawatir.

In [another] version from them and from al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah and al-Daraqutni, [they narrated] from Anas (Allah be pleased with him) that he said, “That the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said ‘Whoever deliberately lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire’ prevents me from narrating many hadiths to you.”

They have also [narrated] from ‘Ali (Allah be pleased with him) [that] he said: The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “Do not lie upon me, for whoever lies upon me, let him enter the Fire.”

The two shaykhs and al-Tirmidhi [narrated] from al-Mughirah ibn Shu’bah (Allah be pleased with him) [that] he said: I heard the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) say, “Lying upon me is not like lying upon another; whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Bukhari, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, ibn Majah and al-Daraqutni [narrated] from ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (Allah be pleased with them) [that] he said: I said to Zubayr [ibn ‘Awwam], “I do not hear you narrating from Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as so-and-so and so-and-so narrate.” He said, “Certainly, I did not part from him since I accepted Islam, but I heard him say, ‘Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.’” Al-Daraqutni added, “By Allah he did not say ‘deliberately’ and you say ‘deliberately.’”

Al-Bukhari and al-Daraqutni [narrated] from Salamah ibn al-Akwa’ (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Bukhari, al-Tirmidhi, al-Daraqutni and al-Hakim in Al-Madkhal [narrated] from Ibn ‘Umar (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: He (upon him blessings and peace) said, “Narrate from me and do not lie upon me, for whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi who authenticated it and Ibn Majah [narrated] from Ibn Mas’ud (Allah be pleased with him) [that] he said: He (upon him blessings and peace) said, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad, al-Darimi and Ibn Majah [narrated] from Jabir (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: He (upon him blessings and peace) said, “Beware of excessive narration; whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Darimi and Ibn Majah [narrated] from Abu Qatadah (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: I heard him (upon him blessings and peace) say on this pulpit, “Beware of excessive narration; nothing should be said about me but reality and truth, and whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn Majah [narrated] from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said in marfu’ form, “Write not from me [anything] besides the Qur’an, and whoever wrote anything besides the Qur’an should erase it. Narrate from the Israelites and there is no harm. Narrate from me and do not lie upon me, for whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Abu Ya’la, al-‘Uqayli and al-Tabrani in Al-Awsat [narrated] from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, or rejects something I commanded, let him occupy a house in Hell.”

Ahmad and Abu Ya’la [narrated] from ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me, he is in the Fire.”

Ahmad, al-Bazzar, Abu Ya’la, al-Daraqutni and al-Hakim inAl-Madkhal [narrated] from ‘Uthman (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) that he would say, “That I am not the most retentive from the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) regarding him does not prevent me from narrating from him, but [because] I bear witness that I heard him say, ‘Whoever ascribes a lie to me, let him occupy a house in the Fire.’”

Abu Ya’la and Al-Tabrani [narrated] from Talhah ibn ‘Ubayd Allah in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Bazzar, Abu Ya’la, al-Daraqutni and al-Hakim in Al-Madkhal  [narrated] from Sa’id ibn Zayd ibn ‘Amr ibn Nufayl (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) that he (upon him blessings and peace) said, “Verily, lying upon me is not like lying upon another; whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad, Hannad in al-Zuhd, al-Bazzar, al-Tabrani and al-Hakim in al-Madkhal [narrated] from Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them) in marfu’ form, “Verily, a house in the Fire will be built for the one who lies upon me.”

Ahmad, al-Harith ibn Abi Usamah in his Musnad and al-Tabrani [narrated] from Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (Allah be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad, al-Bazzar, Abu Ya’la and al-Tabrani [narrated] from Khalid ibn ‘Arfatah in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately” and in [another] narration “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad, al-Harith ibn Abi Usamah, al-Bazzar, al-Tabrani and al-Hakim in al-Madkhal [narrated] from Yahya ibn Maymun al-Hadrami that Abu Musa al-Ghafiqi heard ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir al-Juhani (Allah be pleased with him) narrating hadiths from Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) on the pulpit, and Abu Musa (Allah be pleased with him) said, “Verily, this companion of yours has preserved [the hadiths] or is destroyed; indeed the last thing he (upon him blessings and peace) entrusted unto us was that he said, ‘Hold to the Book of Allah, and you will refer to a people who love to narrate from me, so whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire, and whoever preserves a thing, let him narrate it.’”

Ahmad, Abu Ya’la and al-Tabrani [narrated] from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir (Allah be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad, al-Bazzar and al-Tabrani [narrated] from Zayd ibn Arqam in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ahmad [narrated] from Qays ibn Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) in marfu’  form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately let him take [his] resting place in the Fire” or “a house in Hell.”

Al-Bazzar and al-‘Uqayli in al-Du’afa’ [narrated] from ‘Imran ibn Husayn (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani [narrated] in al-Awsat from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) that a man wore a dress resembling the dress of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), then he came to a household in Madinah and said, “Verily, he (upon him blessings and peace) commanded me to survey whichever household I wish from the residents of Madinah.” They then prepared accommodation for him and sent a messenger to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and informed him. He said to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with them), “Go to him and if you find him, kill him, then burn him with fire, and if you find him and you have been spared this [task] [because he is already dead], and I do not believe but the two of you will be spared this [task], then burn him with Fire.” Thereupon, they came to him and found him having come out in the night to urinate, when a snake bit him and he died, so they burned him with fire. Then they returned to him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and informed him and he (upon him blessings and peace) said, “Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn ‘Adi in al-Kamil [narrated] from Buraydah (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: A suburb of Banu Layth was [situated] two miles away from Madinah. A man had proposed to one of them in Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic times) and they did not marry him [to her], so he came to them [putting] on a dress, saying, “Indeed Allah’s Messenger garbed me this [dress] and commanded me to rule over your properties and your blood.” Then he set forth and fell on that woman he proposed to [i.e. fornicated with her]. Thereupon, the people sent a messenger to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and he said, “He lied, the enemy of Allah!” Then he sent a man and said, “If you find him alive, strike his neck, and if you find him dead, burn him.” Then he found him, a snake having bit him and he died, so he burned him with fire. That is [a consequence of] his (upon him blessings and peace) statement, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani [narrated] from ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah (Allah be pleased with him) [that] he said: I went with my father to an in-law of ours from the Companions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) who accepted Islam, and I heard him say: I head Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) say “Give us rest by it, i.e. prayer, O Bilal.” I said, “Did you hear that from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace)?” He then became angry and began narrating to them that he (upon him blessings and peace) sent a man to an Arab suburb and when he came to them, he said, “He (upon him blessings and peace) commanded me to rule over your women however I wish.” Thereupon they said, “[We] hear and [we] obey the command of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace),” and they sent a man to him (upon him blessings and peace) and said, “Indeed so-and-so came to us and said that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) commanded me to rule over your women, so if it is from your command then [we] hear and [we] obey and if it is other than that, we wished to let you know.” Then he (upon him blessings and peace) became angry and sent a man from the Ansar, saying, “Go and kill him or burn him with fire.” He reached him and he had [already] died and was buried, so he ordered that [his body] be exhumed, then he burned him with fire. Then he [the in-law of ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah] said: Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire” and he said, “Do you think that I will lie upon the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) after this?”

Al-Tabrani in al-Awsat [narrated] from Zayd ibn Arqam and al-Bara’ ibn ‘Azib (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with them), elevating it [to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)], “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani [narrated] from Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani in al-Awsat [narrated] from Mu’adh ibn Jabal in marfu’  form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.” Al-Tabrani [narrated] from ‘Amr ibn Murrah al-Juhani with this wording; Al-Tabrani in al-Saghir [narrated] from Nabit ibn Sharit like so; al-Tabrani [narrated] from ‘Ammar ibn Yasir like so; he [narrated] from ‘Amr ibn ‘Abasah like so and [he narrated] from ‘Amr ibn Hurayth like so; he and al-Darimi [narrated] from Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) like so; he [narrated] from ‘Utaybah ibn Ghazwan like so; he and Ibn ‘Adi [narrated] from al-‘Urs ibn ‘Amirah like so; he and al-Darimi [narrated] from Ya’la ibn Murrah like so; he and al-Bazzar [narrated] from Abu Malik al-Ashja’i from his father whose name was Tariq ibn Aysham like so; and he, Abu Nu’aym and al-Isma’ili in his Mu’jam [narrated] from Salman ibn Khalid al-Khuza’i in marfu’ form with the wording, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him occupy a house in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani [narrated] from ‘Amr ibn Dinar (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) that the children of Suhayb said to Suhayb, “O our father! The children of the Companions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) are narrating from their fathers,” and he said: I heard the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) say, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.” Al-Tabrani [narrated] from al-Sa’ib ibn Yazid with this wording and he [narrated] from Abu Umamah al-Bahili with the wording: “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire between the eyes of Hell.” He [narrated] from Abu Qursafah that he (upon him blessings and peace) said, “Narrate from me whatever you hear, and it is not permitted for a man to lie upon me, for whoever lies upon me” or he said “ascribes to me what I have not said, a house in Hell will be built for him, in which he will be thrown.” He [narrated] from Rafi’ ibn Khudayj in marfu’ form, “Do not lie upon me, for indeed lying upon me is not like lying upon another.” He [narrated] from Aws ibn Aws al-Thaqafi in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon his Prophet or his eyes [i.e. he invents a dream] or his parents [i.e. he falsely identifies his parents], he will never smell the fragrance of Paradise.” He [narrated] in al-Awsat from Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, “Do not lie upon me; indeed, the one who lies upon me is reckless.” He [narrated] in al-Awsat from Abu Khaldah [that] he said: I heard Maymun al-Kurdi while he was with Malik ibn Dinar (Allah be pleased with him), then Malik ibn Dinar said to him, “Why is it that the shaykh does not narrate from his father, for indeed your father saw the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and heard from him?” Thereupon, he said, “Our father would not narrate from him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) out of fear that he would add or subtract from his speech, and he said: I heard him (upon him blessings and peace) say, ‘Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.’” He [narrated] from Sa’d ibn al-Midhas from him (upon him blessings and peace), “Whoever knows something must not conceal it, and whoever lies upon me let him occupy a house in Hell.”

Abu Muhammad al-Ramahurmuzi [narrated] in Kitab al-Muhaddith al-Fasil from Malik ibn ‘Atahiyyah that he (upon him blessings and peace) instructed us in the Farewell Hajj, saying, “Hold to the Qur’an, and you will refer to groups who narrate from me, so whoever preserves a thing, let him narrate it, and whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani and al-Ramahurmuzi [narrated] from Rafi’ ibn Khudayj (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) passed by us one day while we were talking and he said, “What are you discussing?” They said, “That which we heard from you, O Messenger of Allah.” He said, “Talk, but whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn Sa’d and al-Tabrani [narrated] from al-Muqanna’ al-Tamimi [that] he said: I brought the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) the sadaqah of our camels when he ordered to [receive] it and take it [to the treasury]. I said, “Two she-camels amongst them are a gift for you,” so he ordered to separate the gift from the sadaqah. I stayed [some] days, and the people plunged [into talk] that he (upon him blessings and peace) will delegate Khalid ibn al-Walid to the slaves of Mudar to give sadaqah to them. I said, “By Allah our people have no money,” so I came to him (upon him blessings and peace) and said to him, “Indeed the people are plunged in such and such [talk],” so the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) raised his hands until the whiteness of his armpits could be seen, saying, “O Allah I never permitted them to lie upon me.” Al-Muqanna’ said, “Thereafter, I did not narrate from him (upon him blessings and peace) a hadith, except a tradition articulated in the Book or applied in the Sunnah. [That was the case of he who] lies upon him in [his] lifetime, so how [would it be] after his death?”

Al-Daraqutni [narrated] from Rafi’ ibn Khudayj (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) [that] he said: We were with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and a man came to him saying, “O Messenger of Allah! The people are narrating from you in such and such [a manner],” and he said, “I do not say except that which descends from heaven. Woe unto you! Do not lie upon me, for indeed a lie upon me is not like lying upon another.”

Al-Bazzar [narrated] from Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them) in marfu’ form, “From the greatest of falsehoods is he who attributes to his eyes what they did not see, and from the greatest of falsehoods is he who ascribes to me what I have not said.”

Al-‘Uqayli [narrated] in Kitab al-Du’afa’ from Abu Kabshah al-Anmari (Allah be pleased with him), with the wording, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.” Al-‘Uqayli [narrated] from Ghazwan (Allah be pleased with him) with this wording, and he and al-Tabrani in al-Afrad [narrated] from Abu Rafi’, “Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in Hell.”

Ibn ‘Asakir [narrated] in his Tarikh from Wathilah ibn al-Asqa’ (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him): I heard Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) say, “Verily, from the greatest of major sins is that a man ascribes [to me] what I have not said.” Ibn ‘Adi and al-Hakim in al-Madkhal [narrated] through another route from Wathilah ibn al-Aqsa’ in marfu’ form, “Verily, from the greatest of falsehoods is he who ascribes to me what I have not said or attributes to his eyes in sleep what it had not seen.”

Al-Khatib in his Tarikh [narrated] from al-Nu’man ibn Bashir, and its wording is: “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Tabrani [narrated] from Usamah ibn Zayd (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) with the wording: “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Hakim [narrated] in al-Madkhal from Jabir ibn ‘Abdillah (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him), “The anger of Allah (Exalted is He) is severe on he who lies upon me deliberately.”

Al-Hakim [narrated] in al-Madkhal from Bahaz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather in marfu’ form, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, upon him is the curse of Allah, the Angels, and all humankind, and compulsory acts and voluntary acts will not be accepted from him.”

Al-Hakim [narrated] in al-Madkhal from Hudhayfah (Allah be pleased with him), “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Hakim [narrated] in al-Madkhal from ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) with the wording, “Whoever narrates from me a lie, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Bazzar and Ibn ‘Adi [narrated] from Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him) in marfu’ form, “Three [men] will not smell the fragrance of Paradise: a man claiming another as his father, a man who lies upon his Prophet, and a man who lies upon his eyes.”

Ahmad, Hannad and al-Hakim in his Mustadrak [narrated] from Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him) with the wording: “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire” and in a wording “a house in Hell.”

Ibn Sa’id in his collection of the routes of this hadith [narrated] from Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) with the wording: “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Khatib [narrated] in al-Tarikh from Abu ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah (Allah be pleased with him) with the wording: “Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn ‘Adi [narrated] from Suhayb (Allah be pleased with him) and its wording is: “Whoever lies upon me, he will be charged on the Day of Resurrection with weaving together two barleycorns, and that is what prevents me from narrating.”

Al-Daraqutni [narrated it] inal-Afrad like so and al-Khatib in al-Tarikh [narrated] from Salman al-Farisi (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him); Ibn al-Jawzi and Hafiz Yusuf ibn Khalil in his collection of the paths of this hadith [narrated] from Abu Dharr like so, and Ibn Sa’id and others [narrated] from Hudhayfah ibn Usayd (Allah be pleased with him) like so.

Ibn ‘Adi [narrated] from Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him), “Whoever innovates a thing or shelters an innovator, upon him is the curse of Allah, the Angels, and all of humankind, and [also] upon whoever lies upon me deliberately.”

Ibn Qani’ in his Mu’jam [narrated] from Usamah ibn Zayd (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him), “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire” and that was [said] because he sent a man for a need and he lied upon him, whereupon he cursed him, and he was found dead, his insides split open, and the earth did not accept him.

Al-Daraqutni and Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] from ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with them), “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.” Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] through another route from ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with them) that he said one day to his companions, “Do you know what is the meaning of this hadith: ‘Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire’? A man was passionately in love with a woman, so he came to her people in the evening and said, ‘I am the emissary of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace). He sent me to you that I may be hosted in whichever house I wish.’ He waited while passing the night, and a man from amongst them came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said, ‘So-and-so came to us claiming that you commanded him to stay in whichever of our houses he wished.’ Thereupon, he said ‘He lied! Oh so-and-so, go with him and if Allah enables you, strike his neck and burn him with fire, and I do not believe but you will be spared this [task].’ Then, he [i.e. the man who lied] came out to perform wudu’ and a snake bit him and he died. When this [news] reached the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), he said, ‘He is in the Fire.’”

Ibn Qani’ in Mu’jam al-Sahabah  and Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] from ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa  (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) with the wording: “Whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.” They [narrated] from Yazid ibn Asad like so; al-Hakim [narrated] from ‘Affan ibn Habib (Allah be pleased with him) like so; and al-Jawzaqani and Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] from a man from the Companions (Allah be pleased with him) with the wording, “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him occupy [his place] between the eyes of Hell.”

Ibn Sa’id and others [narrated] from ‘A’ishah (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with her) with the wording: “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Al-Daraqutni and Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] from Umm Ayman (Allah be pleased with her) and its wording is, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] from ‘Ali (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with him) and its wording is: “Whoever lies upon Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), he has indeed prepared his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn al-Jawzi [narrated] from Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah Exalted is He be pleased with them): Al-‘Abbas said, “O Messenger of Allah! If only we could make an elevated place for you from above which you speak to the people, so they can hear [you].” He said, “I will remain like this: their dust afflicting me, while they tread on my heels, until Allah relieves me from them, so whoever lies upon me, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn ‘Adi [narrated] from Shu’bah, “Whoever lies upon me deliberately, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Ibn Khalil [narrated] from Zayd ibn Thabit (Allah be pleased with him) like so; he [narrated] from Ka’b ibn Qutbah like so; he [narrated] from the father of Abu l-‘Ashra’ like so; he and Abu Nu’aym [narrated] from ‘Abdullah ibn Zaghb like so.

Abu Nu’aym [narrated] from Jabir ibn Habis (Allah be pleased with him) with the wording: “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Hafiz al-Suyuti said: “More than a hundred Companions narrated this hadith and a multitude of the people of excellence gathered its paths to them. Ibn al-Jawzi transmitted from Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Isfara’ini that there is no hadith in the world that the ten promised paradise agreed upon besides the hadith, ‘Whoever lies upon me…’ Ibn al-Jawzi said: the narration of ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf (Allah be pleased with him) [one of the ten promised Paradise] has not occurred to me till now.” End

One of the subtleties that was mentioned in this regard is that which ‘Allamah Abu l-Qasim ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad al-Ghurani, the author of many works, said: Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Mu’addib narrated to us: Abu l-Muzaffar Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Husam al-Samarqandi narrated to us: he said: I heard al-Khadir and Ilyas say: We heard Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) say, “Whoever ascribes to me what I have not said, let him take his seat in the Fire.” Al-Dhahabi said: Abu ‘Amr ibn al-Salah dictated this hadith and said, “This occurred to us in a transcript from Al-Khadir and Ilyas.” Al-Dhahabi said, “I do not know who compiled this transcript.” [Here] ends the speech of Al-Qari in its entirety.

I say: it is established from these narrations that fabricating [something] about the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and attributing to him what he did not say is absolutely haram and a cause for being punished in the Fire, whether it is in regards to Halal and Haram or inducing hope and fear or anything else. Hence, the belief of some ignorant fabricators that lying upon him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to induce hope and fear is permissible because it is a lie for him not against him, is unacceptable.

Furthermore, it is established from the aforementioned narrations that just as lying upon him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) verbally and practically by attributing to him a statement he did not say and an action he did not perform is from the greatest of the major sins, similarly attributing a virtue or a rank to his purified essence whose existence is not established in the holy prophetic essence by verses or reliable hadiths is also from the greatest of the major sins. The admonishing preachers should, therefore, pay attention, and the story-tellers and the exhorting and reproving sermonisers should beware, since they attribute many things to the holy person whose existence has not been established therein and they think that in this is a great reward due to establishing a virtue for the holy essence and elevating its stature, yet they are unaware that the prophetic virtues established in the sahih hadiths dispose of the need for those flimsy falsehoods. By my life, his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) virtues are outside the limit of encompassment and enumeration, and his merits, by which he excels all creation, are very many without end, so what is the need to extol him using falsehoods? Rather, this is a cause for great sin and deviation from the Straight Path.

We ought to mention here some of the stories which are commonly narrated by most of the preachers of our age in their sermonic gatherings while believing them to be established facts, in spite of them being manufactured and fabricated:

From them is what they mention that when the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was taken by night in the Night of Mi’raj (Ascension) to the high heavens and reached the Lofty Throne, he intended to take off his shoes, considering His (Exalted is He) statement to our master Musa when He spoke to him, “So remove your shoes; verily, you are in the sacred valley of Tuwa” (Qur’an 20:12). He was then called from the Lofty Court: “O Muhammad! Do not remove your shoes as the Throne will take honour in your advent wearing shoes and will take it as pride and blessings before others.” So the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) ascended the Throne while the shoes were on his feet, and thus he was granted honour and loftiness.

This story was narrated by many composers of eulogistic poems while others incorporated [it] in their writings on the Sunnah. Most of the preachers in our age mention it in detail as well as in summary in their sermonic functions. Ahmad al-Muqri’ al-Maliki in his book Fath al-Muta’al fi Madhi Khayr al-Ni’al, and ‘Allamah Radi al-Din al-Qazwini and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Baqi al-Zurqani in Sharh al-Mawahib al-Laduniyyah, clarified that this story is fabricated in its entirety. May Allah uglify its fabricator! It is not established in a [single] narration from the [various] narrations of the Prophetic Mi’raj, despite the abundance of its paths, that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grand him peace) was in that [time] wearing shoes, and it is not established that he ascended the Throne, although he reached a place [where] “he drew nigh” to his Lord “and came down and was at a distance of two bow-lengths or nearer, and He revealed to His servant what He revealed.” (Qur’an 53:8-10). I have a detailed discussion on this point in my treatise Ghayat al-Maqal fima yata’allaqu bi l-Ni’al, so that should be studied.

From them is what the preachers mention that the Prophet was given knowledge of the first and the last (al-awwalin wa l-akhirin) in detail, and he was granted knowledge of all that has passed and all that is to come, universally (kulliyyan) and particularly (juz’iyyan), and that there is no difference between his knowledge and the knowledge of his Lord from the perspective of encompassment and inclusion, and the only difference is that the knowledge of Allah is everlasting and eternal in His very Essence without having been taught by another, as opposed to the knowledge of the Messenger, since he acquired it through being taught by his Lord. This is flowery speech and falsehood as clarified by Ibn Hajar al-Makki in al-Minah al-Makkiyyah Sharh al-Qasidat al-Hamziyyah and [by] other scholars of poetry. That which is established from the Qur’anic verses and the Prophetic hadiths is that encompassment, inclusion and knowledge of all ghayb is specific to the Honourable Truth [i.e. Allah], and this quality was not granted from the part of the Truth to any of creation. Yes, the sciences of our Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) are more excessive and abundant than the sciences of the rest of the Prophets and Messengers, and the teaching of his Lord to him of the unseen matters is more perfect relative to [His] teaching to others, so he is most perfect in knowledge and practice, and the chief of creation in rank and virtue.

From them is what the preachers mention that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) knew the whole Qur’an and recited it from the moment of his birth, and that the meaning of his statement “I am not a reader” in response to Jibril saying to him when revelation began, “Recite!” as was narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari and others, is: “I will not read by your command, as I know it and read it from before.” This is no doubt a fabrication, falsified by Qur’anic verses and Prophetic reports.

From them is what they mention that he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was not unlettered (ummi), rather he was able to write and recite by nature. This is a statement contravening the Qur’an and Sunnah and even the consensus (ijma’) of the ummah. It has no consideration, therefore, for the perspicacious.

From them is what they mention of the story of ‘Ukashah when commemorating the beauty of the Muhammadan character. This was transmitted by Abu Nu’aym in Hilyat al-Awliya’ from Ibn ‘Abbas [that] he said: When “When comes the Help of Allah, and Victory” (110:1) to the end of the surah, was revealed, Muhammad said, “O Jibril! My death has been announced.” Jibril said, “The Hereafter will be better for you than the present and verily your Lord will give unto you until you are content.” (93:4-5) Then Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) commanded Bilal to make a call for congregational prayer. The Muhajirun and Ansar then congregated in the mosque and he prayed with the people. He then ascended the pulpit and praised and glorified Allah, and he delivered a sermon that made the hearts fearful and the eyes tearful.

Then he said: “O people! What [kind] of prophet have I been to you?” They said, “Allah reward you greatly for the Prophet [you have been], for verily, you were to us like a compassionate father and a well-wishing kind brother. You transmitted the messages of Allah and you conveyed to us His revelation, and you called to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching. So, Allah reward you on our behalf the best that He rewards a prophet on behalf of his people.”

Then he said: “Assemblies of Muslims! I adjure you by Allah and by my right over you, whoever has a complaint against me, let him stand and take retaliation from me before the retaliation on the Day of Resurrection.” An old man called ‘Ukashah [who was] amongst the Muslims stood and walked passed the Muslims until he stood before the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said, “My father and my mother be sacrificed for you, O Messenger of Allah! Had you not adjured us more than once, I would not be one to offer any [complaint] against you. I was with you in battle, and when Allah gave us an opening and gave victory to His Prophet and we turned back, my she-camel drew parallel to your she-camel, so I descended from the she-camel and came close to you to kiss your thigh, but then you lifted a cane and hit my flank. I do not know if that was intentional on your part or you wanted to hit the she-camel.”

Thereupon, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “I seek refuge for you in the glory of Allah, that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) intentionally struck [you]. O Bilal! Go to the house of Fatimah and bring a long cane.” Bilal left the mosque with his hands on his head, saying aloud, “This is the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) offering retaliation upon himself!” Then he knocked on the door of Fatimah and said, “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace)! Give me a long cane.” Fatimah said, “O Bilal! What will my father do with the cane? This is not the season of Hajj or war.” He said, “How unaware you are of the plight of your father! Verily, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is entrusting the religion and departing the world and offering retaliation upon himself.” So Fatimah said, “And who is it that his soul has agreed to retaliating upon the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), O Bilal? Say to al-Hasan and al-Husayn to stand to this man and not let him take retaliation from the Messenger of Allah.”

Then, the Messenger of Allah gave the cane to ‘Ukashah. When Abu Bakr and ‘Umar saw that they said, “We are in front of you so take retaliation from us and do not take retaliation from Allah’s Messenger,” and the Messenger of Allah said to them, “Leave O Abu Bakr and you, O ‘Umar, for indeed Allah knows your place and your station.” ‘Ali stood and said, “O ‘Ukashah, in the life of this world, I was before Allah’s Messenger [i.e. in his service], and my soul does not agree with you hitting the Messenger of Allah; so this is my back and my belly, take retaliation from me and strike me a hundred strikes, and do not take retaliation from Allah’s Messenger.” Allah’s Messenger said, “O ‘Ali! Sit, for indeed Allah knows your station and your intention.” Then al-Hasan and al-Husayn stood and said, “O Ukashah do you not know that we are the grandchildren of the Messenger of Allah so retaliation upon us is like retaliation upon the Messenger of Allah?” He said to them, “Sit down O coolness of my eyes, Allah has not forgotten this station for you.”

Then, the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “O Ukashah! Strike if you are going to strike.” He said, “O Messenger of Allah! You struck me while I was uncovered.” Thereupon, he exposed his belly and the Muslims screamed out, crying, and said, “Do you believe ‘Ukasha is hitting the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace)?” When ‘Ukashah saw the whiteness of his belly, he said, “My father and mother be sacrificed for you! My soul does not agree to retaliate upon you.” The Prophet said to him, “Either you strike or you pardon.” He said “I pardon you, hoping that Allah will pardon me on the Day of Resurrection.” The Prophet said, “Whoever wishes to see my companion in the Garden, let him look at this [man].” The Muslims stood and began kissing between the eyes of ‘Ukashah and they said, “Blessed are you! Blessed are you! You have reached the Highest Ranks and the companionship of Allah’s Messenger.”

The hadith is mentioned in its entirety in Kitab al-Mawdu’at by Ibn al-Jawzi. Ibn al-Jawzi said, “This is mawdu’ and its inventor was ‘Abd al-Mun’im,” meaning, ‘Abd al-Mun’im ibn Idris ibn Sinan, the narrator from his father from Wahb from Ibn ‘Abbas and from him Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn al-Bara and from him Sulayman ibn Ahmad al-Tabrani and from him Abu Nu’aym. Al-Suyuti agreed with him in al-La’ali al-Masnu’ah fi l-Ahadith al-Mawdu’ah and Ibn ‘Arraq inTanzih al-Shari’ah ‘an al-Ahadith al-Mawdu’ah and others.

Al-Dhahabi said in Mizan al-I’tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal:

‘Abd al-Mun’im ibn Idris al-Yamani, the famous story-teller, is not relied upon. More than one have abandoned his [narrations] and Ahmad ibn Hanbal clarified [this], saying, “He would lie upon Wahb ibn Munabbih”; Al-Bukhari said, “[He is] wasted in hadith (dhahib al-hadith)”; Al-‘Uqayli said: Muhammad ibn al-Husayn al-Anmati narrated to us: ‘Abd al-Mun’im ibn Idris narrated to us from his father from Wahb from Ibn ‘Abbas from the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), “A fly does not fly between two [people] except by fate” and he [narrated] from his father from Wahb from Jabir and Ibn ‘Abbas a long account regarding the death of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and that he gave a cane to ‘Ukashah to retaliate upon him. Ibn Hibban said, “He would fabricate hadiths upon his father and on others and he died in 228 H in Baghdad.” End

[It is] also [mentioned] therein [i.e. Mizan al-I’tidal]:

Idris ibn Sinan al-San’ani, the grandson of Wahb ibn Munabbih, was weakened by Ibn ‘Adi, and al-Daraqutni said [about him], “[He is] abandoned” and his son ‘Abd al-Mun’im ibn Idris [narrated] from him. He was mentioned by Ibn Hibban in his Tarikh. End

[It is mentioned] in Lisan al-Mizan by Hafiz ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani in the biography of ‘Abd al-Mun’im:

Ibn Abi Hatim transmitted from Isma’il ibn ‘Abd al-Karim: Idris died while ‘Abd al-Mun’im was an infant, and the same was said by Ahmad when asked about him: “he did not hear a thing from his father.” ‘Abd al-Khaliq ibn Mansur said [narrating] from Ibn Ma’in that he is a wicked liar (kadhdhab khabith) and according to Abu Zur’ah “[he is] weak in hadith” and al-Fallas said, “[He is] abandoned; he took the books of his father and narrated them and did not hear a thing from his father”. Abu Ahmad al-Hakim said, “[He is] wasted in hadith” and Ibn al-Madini said, “He is not trustworthy; he took books and narrated them” and al-Nasa’i said, “He is not trustworthy” and al-Saji said, “He would buy biographical works (kutub al-sirah) and narrate them; he did not hear them from his father, not even a part of it.” End

From them is what they mention at the commemoration of the Prophetic birth that the light of Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was created from the light of Allah in the sense that His Holy Essence became a substance for his illuminated soul, and that He (Exalted is He) took a handful of His light and created from it his light. This is sophistic talk since the essence of our Lord (Glorified and Blessed is He) is transcendent beyond being a substance of [any] besides Him. Taking a handful of His light does not mean that a part of him was cut off and made into the light of His Prophet because the concomitant of that is divisibility (tajazzi) and other things that follow from that in His essence (Exalted is Him), Transcendent is Allah beyond that. That which brought them into this dark quandary is the outward [meaning] of the narration of ‘Abd al-Razzaq in his Musannaf from Jabir [that] he said: I said “O Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace)! My father and mother be sacrificed for you! Tell me of the first thing Allah created before all things.” He said, “O Jabir! Verily, Allah created the light of your Prophet from His light before all things, and He made that light turn by [His] Power wherever Allah wished, and at that time there was no Tablet and no Pen, no Garden and no Fire, no Angel and no Heaven, no earth and no sun and no moon, no jinni and no man.” The hadith is mentioned in its entirety in al-Mawahib al-Ludaniyyah and other [works].

They erred in understanding the Prophetic meaning and they do not know that the ascription (idafah) in his statement “from His light” is like the ascription in His (Exalted is He) statement in the story of the creation of Adam, “I breathed into him of My spirit” (15:29) and like His statement in the story of our master ‘Isa “a spirit from Him” (4:171) and like their statement, “The house of Allah” for the Ka’bah and mosques, and their statement, “The spirit of Allah” for ‘Isa, etc. Al-Zurqani said in Sharh al-Mawahib in the commentary of his statement, “from His light”:

[This is] an ascription of ennoblement (idafat al-tashrif) and to notify that he is a wonderful creation and that he has a rank which has a certain relationship with the esteemed lordship according to the meaning of His (Exalted is He) statement “and He breathed into him from His spirit.” This is a rhetorical (bayaniyyah) [sentence], meaning: “from the light of His essence”, not in the sense that it is a substance for the creation of his light, rather in the sense of the [Divine] Will pertained to it without the mediation of anything when bringing it into existence. End.

He also said some pages before this:

As for what is mentioned that Allah took a handful of the light of His Face and cast a look at it so it perspired and dropped, so Allah created out of every drop a prophet, and that the handful was the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and he was like a brilliant star, and that the entire world was created out of it and he was existent before his parents were created and he memorised the Qur’an before Jibril came to him and things like these, Hafiz Abu l-‘Abbas Ahmad ibn Taymiyah said in his Fatawaand Hafiz ibn Kathir quoted it in his Tarikh and agreed with him that all these things are fabricated lies about his speech by agreement of the people of knowledge. End

Note:

The primacy and the definite priority of the creation of the Muhammadan light are established in the narration of ‘Abd al-Razzaq. The hadith, “The first of what Allah created is my light” is famous amongst the story-tellers, although it is a hadith not established in this form, even though other [narrations] were narrated that agree with it in meaning. Al-Suyuti said in his commentary onJami’ al-Tirmidhi called Qut al-Mughtadhi when commenting on the hadith, “Verily the first that Allah created is the Pen”:

Zayn al-‘Arab said in Sharh al-Masabih: “This hadith is contradicted by that which was narrated that ‘the first that Allah created was the Intellect’, and ‘the first that Allah created was my light’, and ‘the first that Allah created was the Spirit’, and ‘the first that Allah created was the Throne.’ Its response is that the primacy of things is relative, so it is understood that each of what was mentioned was first in its [own] genus. Hence, the pen was created before all bodies, his (upon him blessings and peace) light was created before all lights, and the hadith of the Intellect is understood as the first that Allah created of subtle bodies is the Intellect, and from the dense [bodies] is the Throne, so there is no contradiction between any of them.” [Here] ends the statement of Zayn al-‘Arab. I say: the hadith of Intellect is fabricated and the other three were not narrated with this wording so the interpretation is dispensable.

I say: similar to “the first that Allah created is my light” in not being established textually but having been transmitted in meaning, is that which is famous on the tongues of the story-tellers and the general and the elite of the hadith, “Were it not for you, I would not have created the celestial bodies”. ‘Ali al-Qari said inTadhkirat al-Mawdu’at:

[Regarding] the hadith, “Were it not for you, I would not have created the celestial bodies,” al-‘Asqalani said, “[It is]mawdu‘”, as [mentioned] in al-Khulasah. However, its meaning is correct, since al-Daylami narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas in marfu’ form: Jibril came to me and said: Allah said, “O Muhammad! Were it not for you, I would not have created the Garden and were it not for you I would not have created the Fire.” End

Al-Qastallani mentioned in al-Mawahib al-Laduniya and al-Zurqani in its commentary that al-Hakim transmitted in hisMustadrak from ‘Umar in marfu’form that Adam saw the name “Muhammad” written on the throne and Allah said to Adam, “Were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created you.” Abu l-Shaykh in Tabaqat al-Asfahaniyyin and al-Hakim narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas: Allah revealed to ‘Isa, “Believe in Muhammad and command your people to believe in him for were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Adam or the Garden or the Fire and indeed I created the Throne on water and it shook, so I wrote on it: ‘No deity but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.’” ‘Amr ibn Aws is in its sanad and he is unknown. Al-Dhahabi said: According to al-Daylami from Ibn ‘Abbas who elevated it [to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)], “Jibril came to me and said: Indeed Allah says ‘Were it not for you, I would not create the Garden and were it not for you, I would not create the Fire.’”

Similar [is the narration] that has become famous on the tongues of story-tellers of the hadith, “I was a Prophet while Adam was between water and clay” and in a narration, “I was a Prophet and there was no Adam, no water and no clay,” because al-Sakhawi inal-Maqasid al-Hasanah, while explaining many of the hadiths which are common on the tongues, and al-Suyuti in al-Durar al-Muntashirah fi l-Akhbar al-Mushtahirah and others clarified that it is mawdu’ with this wording. Yes, it is established from al-Hakim in his Mustadrakand authenticated by Abu Nu’aym in Hilyat al-Awliya’  and al-Bukhari in his Tarikh and Ahmad in his Musnad from Maysarah al-Dabbi: I said, “O Messenger of Allah! When were you a Prophet?” He said, “While Adam was between spirit and body.” According to al-Bayhaqi and Ahmad, [they narrated] from the hadith of al-‘Irbad ibn Sariyah inmarfu’ form, “Verily I was the Seal of the Prophets by Allah while Adam was still in clay” and according to al-Tirmidhi, [he narrated] from Abu Hurayrah that they [i.e. the Companions] said, “O Messenger of Allah! When was prophethood incumbent upon you?” He said, “While Adam was between spirit and body.”

From them is what the preachers mention while commemorating the Muhammadan beauty that one night a needle dropped from the hand of ‘A’ishah and she lost it, and she searched for it and could not find it, so the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) laughed and the radiance of his teeth appeared, illuminating the chamber, and ‘A’ishah saw the needle with that light. Although this is mentioned in Ma’arij al-Nubuwwah and other biographical works that combine both wet and dry [i.e. sound and unsound reports] so none relies on everything that is in them besides a sleepy or drowsy person, it is, nonetheless, not established by narration or meaning.

From them is what they mention when commemorating the Muhammadan hearing that he hears the blessings of one who sends blessings on him without any mediation, though he is far. This is false and not established by any narration. Rather, its opposite is established. The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “One who sends blessings on me near my grave I hear it, and one who sends blessings on me from a distance, Allah appointed an Angel who conveys it me. It will suffice him for his world and hereafter [and] I will intercede for him on the Day of Judgment.” Al-Bayhaqi inShu’ab al-Iman, Abu l-Shaykh inKitab al-Thawab and Al-‘Uqayli inKitab al-Du’afa’ transmitted it, and it has corroborative reports (shawahid) which were elaborated by Al-Suyuti in Al-La’ali al-Masnu’ah and Ibn ‘Arraq in Tanzih al-Shar’iah.

From them is what they mention that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) attends personally the gatherings commemorating his birth upon the mention of his birth, and they built on this [the practice of] standing (qiyam) when mentioning the birth in respect and honour. This is also a falsehood from the falsehoods, which is not established by any proof. The mere supposition and possibility [of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) attending] is outside the limit of this explanation.

Such stories as we mentioned are many. The preachers of the Muhammadan excellence and the Ahmadi birth (Allah bless him and grant him peace) evoke them, despite their fabrication and [despite] not being established, with the belief on their part that in mentioning the eminence of the Muhammadan stature is a great reward and an immense virtue, ignorant of the great sin due on one who lies upon the Prophet (upon him prayer and peace) in regards to a statement, an action or a beautiful or perfect description, as clear reports and authentic narrations prove.

In sum, it is necessary for every Muslim to be careful in these matters, and not mention anything except after revising it and verifying it from the reliable books of the reliable scholars, and not dare mention all that his nature concocts or is mentioned by all those who have passed before him if they are from those who gather the bad and the good (al-ghathth wa l-samin), and do not differentiate between north and south, because it is a great sin and immense treachery.

Al-Athar al-Marfu’ah fi l-Akhbar al-Mawdu’ah, pp.16-35 (FromMajmu’ah Rasa’il al-Lakhnawi, volume 5, Edited by: Na’im Ashraf Nur Ahmad, Published by:Intisharat Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad Jami)

Source: Deoband.org

Different Types Of Hadith Collections [Like Jaami, Sunan Etc]

[By Imam Luqman Ahmad]

إن الحمد لله نحمده ونستعينه ونستغفره ، ونعوذ بالله من شرور أنفسنا وسيئات أعمالنا ، من يهده الله فلا مضل له ، ومن يضلل فلا هادي له ، وأشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدًا عبده ورسوله .

يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ تُقَاتِهِ وَلا تَمُوتُنَّ إِلا وَأَنْتُمْ مُسْلِمُونَ

يَاأَيُّهَا النَّاسُ اتَّقُوا رَبَّكُمُ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ نَفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالا كَثِيرًا وَنِسَاءً وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ الَّذِي تَسَاءَلُونَ بِهِ وَالأَرْحَامَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلَيْكُمْ رَقِيبًا )

:يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَقُولُوا قَوْلا سَدِيدًا. يُصْلِحْ لَكُمْ أَعْمَالَكُمْ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَمَنْ يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ فَازَ فَوْزًا عَظِيمًا أما بعد :

The study of hadith is a world in itself. It is a beautiful, remarkable and detailed universe of source knowledge, intra-disciplinary sciences, and sub-sciences that support the preservation, transmission, explanation, understanding, and implementation of the Sunnah of our Beloved Prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah ﷺ. The world of hadith is a world of guidance, knowledge, and understanding of this religion.  It is the collection of statements, actions, habits, travels, and events of the Prophet ﷺ and is one of the most satisfying and beneficial paths and pursuits of knowledge. The study of hadith and its related sciences is vast, and is something that scholars, students of knowledge, and regular folk engage in as a lifelong pursuit.

There are many ways to approach hadith study. Primarily as Muslims, we want to know and understand what the Prophet ﷺ did and said so we can obey him and follow him. Of course it’s more than that; it’s loving him, using his guidance, and following his path. No one gets to a point where they know all the hadith, or studied all the hadith or have learned everything there is to learn about hadith of the Prophet ﷺ. There are many approaches, many disciplines and sub-disciplines, and many methods. I advise every student, or serious seeker of knowledge that when you decide to read a collection of hadith, or an explanation of a collection of hadith like Aoun al-Ma’bood, or Tuh’fatu  Ah’wathi, or Fat’h al-Baari, or even study it with your sheikh, you would benefit a lot by reading the introduction, or the foreword by the author himself. You learn a lot from the introduction such as terminology, the reasons behind writing the book, how it is arranged, the authors methodology, and the views of that particular scholar on issues relating to hadith and to his own hadith collection or explanation.

There are two principle ways that hadith books are put together. One is according to chapter and subject matter or what scholars call ‘abwaab’ which is the plural of ‘baab’ which literally means door. In these types of hadith books, the book is organized by subject matter such as tahaarah, salat, zakat, siyaam, buying and selling etc. Books arranged by subject matter are easier for research and finding the topic you are looking for and is preferred by students and scholars alike. If a person wants to look up a hadith on a certain topic, then there’re likely to refer to these types of books first as opposed to the second type which I’m going to talk about next.

The second type of hadith book are books that are arranged according to the companions of the Prophet ﷺ that narrated the hadith originally. Usually this is done in alphabetical order. Sometimes it’s done according to the rank of the narrator (راوي) his preference in Islam or his ranking, or what’s called a tabaqa (طبقة).

The following types that I mention are not all of the types of books of hadith but they are the major ones. In sha Allah this short piece will help understand in some small way, how to study and look at books of hadith. Keep in mind that this is just a small window to a very wide and deep topic. Wal Allahu al-Musta’aan.

Types of Books of Hadith:

Jaami [جامع]:

A Jaami is a hadith collection that contains all the main categories of primary islamic knowledge which represent the full breadth of the religion such as aqeedah, adab, eating and drinking, tafseer, hadith about fitan (trials), raqaa’iqرقائق (spiritual heart softeners) and ibaadahعبادة (worship). The most well-known of such types of hadith books are Jaami as-Sahih by Imam Muhammad Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari (d. 256 h.), better-known as Sahih al-Bukhaari. The actual title that Imam Bukhaari named the book that we’ve come to know as; “Sahih al-Bukhaari” was, “Al-Jaami’ al-Musnad as-Sahih al-Mukhtasar min umoor Rasoolillaah wa sunanihi wa iyyaamihi” (الجامع المسند الصيح المختصر من أمور رسول الله و سننه و ايامه). Over time it simply became known as Sahih al-Bukhaari, or Jaami Sahih, or Jaami’ Sahih al-Bukhaari.

Another is al-Jaami as-Sahih by Imam Muslim, known as Sahih Muslim, and al-Jaami by Imam Abu Eesa at-Tirmithee, better known as Sunan at-Tirmidhi. The actual name of Imam al-Tirmidhi’s collection is Al-Jaami al-Mukhtasar min al-Sunan wa Ma’rifatu as-Saheeh wal ma’lool, wa maa alaihi al-amal. الجامع المختصر من السنن عن رسول الله صلي الله عليه و سلم و معرفة الصحيح و المعلول ما عليه العمل)). As you can see, it is a pretty long name and one that is hardly ever used in any modern printings of the book. It has been referred to at times as Jaami’ as-Sahih by at-Tirmidhi which is a misnomer because the collection contains hadith which are not sound. It’s sometimes referred to as a Sunan because it deals a lot with hadith al-ah’kaam, or hadith that has to do with law and it follows the same pattern as other books of Sunan and notwithstanding that Sunan is part of the original title of the book.  Imam Abu Eesa said about his collection; “anyone who has this book in his house, it’s like the Prophet ﷺ is in his house talking”.

The titles of the books of hadith and the arrangement of the chapters and subject matter gives you an insight into the thinking and methodology of the muhaddith who authored the book. For example, Imam al-Bukhaari and others use what’s called the tarjama [ترجمة]. The word tarjama has several meanings in the Arabic language but according to traditionalists (scholars of hadith) the tarjama is the section heading. The common word for chapter is Kitaab [كتاب] and the common word used for section is baab [section]. The name of the section is the tarjama and the tarjama give you a clue of the scholar’s view on the issue. Imam an-Nawawi used to say; “Bukhaari’s fiqh is in his taraajam”. For example, in Sahih al-Bukhaari in the Book of ghusl (ritual bath), there is a section titled; “If one remembers while he is in the masjid that he is in a state of impurity, he should leave as he is without making tayammam” (بلب اذا ذكر في المسجد انه جنب خرج كما هو، و لا يتيمم), then he proceeds to present the hadith that proves the implication of the tarjama. You see this example throughout his Sahih and in other books of hadith.

Sunan [سنن]

Books of Sunan in the language of hadith scholars are books of hadith that contain hadith dealing with law (احكام), organized by the sections of fiqh. For example, these books usually begin with purification (طهارة), and the section on purification will start with a certain aspect of purification depending on the detail, the style and choice of the compiler of the book. For example, Imam Abu Eesa at-Tirmidhi (d. 279 h.), begins his book with tahaara but starts with the hadith; “the salat is not accepted without wudu”. Then he follows with hadith about the virtues of wudu and moves on from there. However, Imam Abu Dawood (d. 275 h.) takes a different approach; he begins his Sunan with a chapter titled tahaara but begins the first section with hadith about the etiquettes of relieving one’s self. Which is also a part of tahaara.  In the Sunan of an-Nasaai, Imam Abu Abdurrahman Nasaai (d. 303 h.) takes a slightly different approach. He begins his book with the chapter on tahaara but starts with the hadith of Abu Hurraira that the Prophet ﷺ said; “When one of you wakes up from sleep, he should not put his hands water (for ablution) until he washes them because he does not know where his hand spent the night”. (what his hands touched”. The second hadith in his collection is about using siwaak (miswaak), which is also a part of tahaara.

So the major books of Sunan follow the same style and methodology in that purification is usually at the beginning but differ in the exact approach to the topic. This is one reason why students of knowledge should be broad in their lifelong study of the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ which is not something that you do over a certain period of time; it’s something that you do without. Even the major shuyookh of the ummah, still read and study hadith of the Prophet ﷺ and engage in its related sciences.

This demonstrates the breadth of approach to knowledge and scholarly independence of hadith preservation. So of the great scholars who compiled and preserved the ahaadeeth of the Prophet ﷺ, they demonstrated their preferences in how they approach of hadith the topics of Sunnah in their books.

All books of hadith do not have the same detail, the same number of hadith, or the exact same approach to any given topic. After tahaara (purification) Sunan books usually follow with ibaadah starting with salat, then zakat, then fasting and so on. The most well-known books of Sunan are the Sunan of Abu Dawud, the Sunan of at-Tirmithee which is the Jaami of at-Tirmithee [جامع الترمذي], theSunan of an-Nasaa’i, and the Sunan of Ibn Majah. These four are known as the Four Sunan (السنن الاربعة). Within the discipline of hadith study, scholars employ certain terminology that is specific to the science. Within it, they have several ways of referring to books of hadith also. For example, if they say “the three”, then they mean the four Sunan we just mentioned minus the Sunan of ibn Majah. If the say “the five” for example, they mean the four Sunan and the Musnad of Imam Ahmad. If they say ‘Sahihain’ (صحيحين) they mean the collection of al-Bukhaari and Muslim and if they say; ‘as-shaykhaan (الشيخان), [the two shaykhs], then they are talking about al-Bukhaari and Muslim also.

Musnad [مسند]

A Musnad is a collection of hadith that is according to the name of the companion of the Prophet ﷺ who narrated the hadith. Sometimes this is done in alphabetical order, other times it is arranged according to who preceded who in Islam, and other times it is arranged according to preference (fadeelaفضيلة) of the particular companion to another. Many musaaneed begin with hadith narrated by the four caliphs (الخلفاء الراشدين) starting with Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq. Others arrange it according to the ten companions who were promised paradise, then the companions who were at Badr. At other times, a Musnad is arranged according to genealogical status or lineage. There are many musaaneed / مسانيد (plural of Musnad). The most well-known of the musaaneed is the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 h.), followed by the Musnad of Abu Ya’laa.  At other times a Musnad its arranged according to preference or the historical position of the narrator of the hadith.

Al-Mu’jam [المعجم]

Al-Mu’jam (plural: mu’aajam/ معاجم ), in the terminology of traditionalists, are hadith collections that are arranged according to a name of the sheikh from whence the author narrated it. Where the author arranges the hadith according to his shuyookh that he heard them, in alphabetical order. The most well-known of these are the three ma’aajam written by Abu al-Qasim Sulayman at-Tabaraani (d. 360 h.), called al-Mu’jam al-Sagheer, and al-Mu’jam al-Awsat which were both hadith that he related from his shuyookh, and his third one is called al-Mu’jam al-Kabir [المعجم الكبير], which consists of hadith narrated by companions. The Mu’jam al-Kabir is the most famous of Tabaraani’s three collections. It popularity and recognition is at a level that when people mention “al-Mu’jam” then it is known that they are referring to al-Mu’jam al-Kabir by Tabaraani. Some books are so well-known and so widely used that they are fully recognized by even part of the name. for example, the book, Fat’h al-Baari, the famous explanation of Sahih al-Bukhaari by Ibn Hajar al-As’qalaani (d. 852 h.) is known across centuries simply as “al-Fat’h”, despite that there are hundreds of books whose title begins with al-Fat’h or contains the word Fat’h. Nevertheless, when a reference to al-Fat’h is mentioned in a book or a footnote, scholars of this discipline generally assume (depending on the context) that you are referring to Fat’h al-Baari. An anecdotal note about Ibn Hajar’s Fat’h al-Baari is that Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (d. 795 h.) himself, started writing an explanation of Sahih al-Bukhaari and he titled it; ‘Fat’h al-Baari’ he completed up to the chapter on salaatul janaaza before he died. Twenty years after his death, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani began his explanation of Sahih al-Bukhaari and he named it; ‘Fat’h al-Baari’ in honor of ibn Rajab.

Al-Musannafaat al-Jaami’a [المصنفات الجامعة]

These are encyclopedic collection of hadith compiled from many different collections by different scholars of hadith. These types are arranged in two different ways. The first way is to arrange it according to subject category or chapters (abwaab). An example of this type of hadith collect in this style is the book; Jaami’ al-Usool fi Ahaadeeth ar-Rasool [جامع الأصول في احاديث الرسول] by ibn al-Atheer [d. 606 h.] In his book he compiles hadith from Bukhaari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, at-Tirmidhi, ibn Maajah and the Muwatta by Imam Malik. He also takes the added steps of explaining unclear words.  Another book like this is the book; Khunz al-A’maal fi Sunan al-Af’aal wal Aq’waal [خنز العمال في سنن الاقوال و الافعال] by Ali ibn Hussaam al-Muttaqi (d, 975 h.), better known as al-Muttaqi. This is probably one of the most comprehensive books of this type; he complies hadith from about ninety something different collections of hadith. In the beginning of the book he explains terminologies of different scholars of hadith that are specific to them, since all scholars do not use all terminology in other same way.

The second style of collection of this category are books where the hadith are compiled alphabetically according to the first word in the hadith. Such is the book al-Jaami al-Kabir (الجامع الكبير) by  Jalaaluddeen as-Suyuti (d. 911 h.). al-Jaami al-Kabir by Suyuti is considered to be the basis for Khanz al-A’maal. Another book by Suyuti, al-Jaami as-Sagheer in one where he (Suyuti) abridged the Jaami Kabir by removing ahaadeeth that were repeated, and he added other ahaadeeth. The whole book (al-Jaami al-Kabir) has 10,031 hadith altogether.

 Al-Mustad’rak / المستدرك

Al-Mustad’rakaat [المستدركات] are books of hadith where the author writes down hadith whose status of authenticity meet the standards [شرط] of a traditionalist although that traditionalist did not include those ahaadeeth in his own book. For example, Imam Al-Bukhaari memorized 200,000 authentic hadith. However, he only included 7,275 hadith in his Sahih. If you count the hadith that Bukhaari repeated [المكرر], then the number of hadith in Sahih Bukhaari is only 4,000 or so hadith. So another scholar of hadith will come along and make a collection the hadith that meets Bukhaari’s standards of authenticity, but that Bukhaari did not include in his Sahih. Such a book is referred to by scholars of hadith as a Mustadrak /المستدرك.

The most well-known of the Mustad’rakaat (plural) is the Mustadrak of al-Haakim on Bukhari and Muslim titled; al-Mustadrak alaa Sahihain [المستدرك علي الصحيحين]. In al-Haakim’s MustadrakAl-Haakim (d. 403 h.) takes hadith that were collected by imam al-Bukhaari and Imam Muslim, that they did not included in their published collections. He somewhat follows some of Bukhaari’s arrangement of subject matter. The first four sections the Mustad’rak is similar to that of the Sahih as far as methodology. Al-Haakim begins with the book of faith [كتاب الايمان], then the book of knowledge [كتاب العلم], then the book of tahaara [كتاب الطهارة], followed by the book on salat [كتاب الصلاة]. Although he uses different hadith, he uses the same subject categories in the beginning of al-Mustad’rak except that Imam al-Bukhaari starts his book with “The Beginning of Revelation” (بدء الوحي), then he follows with the Book of faith, the book of Knowledge, and then after that al-Bukhaari, instead of having a chapter entitles the book of Tahaara like some of the others, he moves to the Book of Wudu, then the Book of Ghusl, then the Book of Menstruation, then the Book of Tayammum, then he moves to the Book of Salat, and so on. Similar methodology of the others, but different approach to the subject matter.

Unfortunately, scholarship is not without its controversy. Imam al-Haakim, like many other early scholars of hadith compilation, was a Persian. Some have accused Imam al-Haakim as having had leanings towards Shi’ism, and others have said that all of the hadith in the Mustadrak were not according to the standards of Bukhaari and Muslim; some of the hadith they say, were weak, and even forgeries. Other scholars defended him with that if particular muhaddith but that particular muhaddith did not include it in his book. For example, the most well-known Mustad’rak is the Mustad’rak of al-Haakim from Bukhaari and Muslim. He related hadith that met the standard of authenticity of Bukhaari and Muslim even though they did not include those hadith in their collections and we already mentioned some of the controversy surrounding al-Haakim (رحمه الله).

Forty Hadith Collections / الاربعينات

Forty hadith collections are amongst the most common and popular types of hadith collection. In the terminological language of traditionalists ((المحدثين, Arba’een is a collection of hadith that is comprised of forty ahaadeeth, or forty sections (ابواب) of knowledge. The most well-known and perhaps the most often used of forty hadith collections is the Forty Hadith of Imam Abu Zakariyyah Yahya ibn Sharf An-Nawawi (d. 676 h.). Sometimes a forty hadith collection will contain the isnaad of the hadith and at other times it won’t contain isnaad. Sometimes a collection or book will use forty hadith as a benchmark but add to it. For example, ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s (d. 795 h.) Jaami Uloom wal Hikam (جامع العلوم و الحكم), is an explanation of Imam an-Nawawi’s forty hadith but he added ten more hadith to it.

Is the hadith about collecting Forty hadith, a weak hadith?

What prompted many scholars to compile books of forty hadith were two things; the first is the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ: “Whoever of my Ummah memorized forty hadith from the affairs of its deen, Allah will resurrect him (on the day of judgment) as a scholar, and I will be a witness and an intercessor for him on the Day of Judgment”. This hadith, although weak (ضعيف), was reported by thirteen different companions of the Prophet ﷺ. According to Imam an-Nawawi; scholars all agree that this is a weak hadith despite that it has been reported through several chains. Some scholars say that due to the severe weakness of the multiple chains of this hadith, it is not permissible to act according to it. Imam an-Nawawi himself, who compiled one the most famous and enduring collections of forty hadith said; “I’m not depending on this hadith to compile my collection, on the contrary, (I’m basing it on) other sound hadith such as the hadith; “Let those who are present inform those who are absent”, and the hadith; “Allah will brighten (the face) of the person who hears what we say, understands (memorizes) it and passes it on just like he heard it”. that he compiled his forty hadith collection based upon the virtue of compiling and spreading ahaadeeth of the Prophet ﷺ. Nevertheless, despite the weakness of this hadith, many scholars have compiled collections of forty hadith and it has become an accepted and agreed upon category in hadith compilation.

The first of our scholars to compile a book of forty hadith was Abdullah ibn al-Mubaarak (d, 181 h.). This was during the second century of Islam. His work was followed in the next century by Muhammad ibn As’slam at-Toosi (d. 242 h.), and Ibraheem ibn Ali at-Thah’li (d. 293 h.).  During each century of Islam, there have been scholars and Imams who compiled forty hadith collections. Even Ibn Hajar as-Asqalaani compiled a forty hadith compilation according to as-Sakhaawi in his biography of Ibn Hajar. This goes on up until this present day.

Books of Takh’reej / كتب التخريج

Books of takhreej (extraction) are books where the author extracts or deducts hadith from another a book of knowledge that has hadith mentioned in it, and he clarifies in which book this hadith is collected, or which hadith scholars narrated or has a chain to this hadith. books of takh’reej may or may not clarify the strength or the weakness of the hadith, but it will tell you where the hadith is located. There are many books of takh’reej. The idea being takh’reej is so that the reader or student of knowledge is clear about the origin of the hadith he finds in a book. So that he knows which of the traditionalists collected the hadith in his book, and possibly the authenticity of the hadith. Scholars continue to this very day to write books of takh’reej of other collections. It is common for a scholar to do a takh’reej on another book. Usually he’ll put the takh’reej right in a separate or supplemental printing or publication of the book as a footnote, and end note or part of the commentary.

A couple of the more well-known books of takh’reej are;

Tal’khees al-Hibar fi Takh’reej Ahaadeeth al-Raafi’ee al-Kabir /التلخيص الحبير في تخريج احاديث الرافعي الكبير written by Imam Ibn Hajar al-As’qalaani. In it ibn Hajar clarifies the hadith contained in Imam Abu al-Qaasim al-Raafi’ee’s (d. 623 h.) explanation of the book ‘al-Wajeez Fi fiqh al-Shaafi’ee (الوجيز في فقه الشافي) which was written by Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazaali. Al-Mughni an Himl al-Asfaar Fi al-As’faar Fi Takh’reej ma Fi al-Ih’yaa min al-Akh’baar / المغني عن حمل الاسفار في الاسفار في تخريج ما في الاحياء من الاخبار, by al-Haafiz Imam Abdul-Raheem ibn Hussain al-Araaqi, better known as al-Haafiz al-Araaqi (d. 806 h) who incidentally was one of the Shuyookh of ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani. In it, he extracts and clarifies the ahaadeeth contained in ‘Ih’yaa Uloom ad-Deen / احياء علوم الدين, by Imam al-Ghazaali and offers some explanation of some of the text.

Keep in mind, there are many, many other books of takh’reej, books of hadith, other types of hadith books, books about the different sciences of hadith and associated sciences of hadith. The number of books relating to hadith study and methodology are in the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. Some are well-known and others are not so well-own. And Allah knows best as to their number.

These are not all of the types of books of hadith. However, these are the major ones. There is no one book that will give you all the understanding or all the knowledge of the religion . The religion is based upon the Quran and the sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ as recorded in hadith. Understanding is from Allah sub’haanahu wa ta’ala. The books are tools towards understanding in sha Allah, and our scholars are writers, compilers and preservers of these books.  May Allah increase us in knowledge and understanding of the religion.

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!