Category Archives: Quranists/ Hadith Rejectors

The Quranist Fallacy: How Quranism Ultimately Undermines the Quran’s Authenticity

[By Brother Abdullah Feras]

In the 20th century, a fundamentalist doctrine, known as Quranism, began to emerge which called for the sole reliance upon the Quran as a source of Islamic law and guidance. Proponents of this new doctrine thus rejected the authority of traditions ascribed to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, known as hadiths. The basis upon which these calls were made varied in nature: some stemmed from skepticism in the authenticity of hadith collections, while others stemmed from a more fundamentalist outlook that dismissed the Prophet’s role as a source of legislation. Regardless of their leanings, Quranists are all united under the proposition that the Quran is the only viable source of Islamic legislation and guidance.

In this article, I am not interested in delving into traditional Muslim-Quranist polemics. Rather, I am primarily interested in exploring the Quranist paradigm and taking it to its logical conclusion.Though the Quranist doctrine fundamentally revolves around the utilization of the Quran as the sole source of Islamic legislation/guidance, it ironically ends up undermining the entire basis and authenticity of the Quran for two (related) reasons:

  1. Its inability to demonstrate the authenticity of the Quran itself.
  2. Its inability to explain the presence of textual variations in the Quran today.

The Quran’s Authenticity

Since the Quranist polemic is mostly directed at other Muslims who already take the Quran’s authenticity for granted, its logical conclusions are often overlooked. The rejection of primary historical sources that have documented the history of the Quran results in absolute ignorance in the history of the Quran’s compilation and its authenticity.

  • When was the Quran compiled?
  • Who compiled it into its current arrangement/form?
  • Who outlined its script?
  • Who outlined the diacritical marks in its script?
  • How can one ensure the authenticity of our current recension of the Quran?

All of these questions are questions one simply cannot answer if he/she were to entirely dismiss the hadith canon, which provides necessary historical context behind the compilation of the Quran.

Some may claim that the Quran is mutawātir (mass-transmitted), and, thus, definitively authentic. Asides from blindly following later authorities on the Quran who had claimed that the Quran was mutawātir, the Quranist polemicist simply cannot substantiate this claim. Blindly following those authorities is self-defeating, since they all considered hadith collections to be viable sources of Islamic legislation.

Some may cite 15:9 (and similar verses) to argue for the Quran’s authenticity; however, such appeals are circular, since they already presume the authenticity of the Quran. The Quranist narrative simply cannot demonstrate the authenticity of the Quran independently of the Quran. It is merely grounded in several assumptions upon which the entire doctrine is based.

The Ten Qirā’āt: Errors or Recitations?

As known, various parts of the Muslim world recite the Quran in different modes/recitations, known as qirā’āt. The textual variation in these different recitations varies in nature and spans differences in pronunciation, spelling and meaning. The geographical distribution of the qirā’āt has constantly changed throughout history, and the most prominent recitation in the Muslim world today is the recitation of Ḥafṣ b. Sulaymān al-Kūfī (d. 180), which he reportedly inherited from his stepfather, ‘Āsim b. Abī al-Nujūd (d. 127). The recitation is commonly referred to as Ḥafṣ ‘an Āsim. 

The predominant recitation in North and West Africa is the recitation of ‘Uthmān b. Sa’īd al-Miṣrī (d. 197), who was known as Warsh. Warsh partially inherited his recitation from his teacher, Nāfi’ b. ‘Abdurrahmān al-Madanī (d. 169). The recitation of another student of Nāfi, ‘Isā b. Mīna al-Madanī (d. 160), who was known as Qālūn, is prominent in Libya and Tunisia today.

The geographic distribution of the recitations across the Muslim world, however, has varied throughout history due to many factors. Ibn al-Jazarī (d. 855), for example, noted that the predominant recitation in Al-Shām, Hejaz, Egypt and Yemen during his time was that of Abū ‘Amr al-Baṣrī (d. 154) (Ibn al-Jazarī 292). This would quickly change, however, as the Ottomans institutionalized and enforced the recitation of Ḥafṣ, which, as a result, became the predominant recitation in the Muslim world till this day.

Nevertheless, the presence of textual variants in the different qirā’āt of the Quran does not necessarily pose a problem to traditional Muslim scholarship, since it is authentically established, as reported by al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dawūd, al-Tirmiḍī, al-Nasā’ī and many others, that the Prophet recited the Quran in different modes of recitation (aḥruf). These variants in recitation can thus be contextualized and explained by the Prophet’s recitation of the Quran in different modes. Even traditional scholars who held the position that some errors may exist in some of the qirā’āt were able to navigate their way through these different recitations, since they believed that the Prophet himself was a source of textual variations in the Quran.

Since Quranists reject the authenticity and authority of Prophetic traditions, they have no basis for the concept of qirā’āt and Quranic modes of recitation. Rather, the implication of the Quranist polemic is that all of the discrepancies in the qirā’āt simply are errors and accretions that have gradually accumulated in the Quran as it was disseminated across the centuris. They have no way to differentiate the “erroneous” from the “correct” in the Quran today.

Most Quranists simply opt to recite the Quran according to the recitation of Ḥafṣ, for no reason other than the fact that it is recited by the majority of Muslims today.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article is not to appeal to the necessity of the hadith canon out of desperation, for we have, on several occasions, outlined the objective reasons behind our belief in the integrity of the hadith canon. Rather, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate how the Quranist paradigm, which calls for the sole reliance upon the Quran for guidance and legislation, ultimately undermines the authenticity of the Quran itself. This ironic reality is often overlooked due to the fact that the Quranist polemic is mostly directed at Muslims who already believe in the authenticity of the Quran. By taking the Quranist doctrine to its logical conclusion, we can observe its flaws, defects and contradictions. Similarly, we are able observe the double standard of this paradigm, which prides itself in its intense historical skepticism with Prophetic traditions yet laxly presumes the historical authenticity of the entire Quran for no objective reason(s).

Works Cited

Ibn al-Jazarī, Muḥammad. Ghāyat al-Nihāyah fī ṭabaqāt al-Qurrā’. Edited by Gotthelf Bergsträßer vol. 1, DKI, 2006.

Response to the Hadith Rejectors’ Contention: “Is Saheeh Bukhaari a Revelation from Allaah that it cannot contain a Mistake!!?”

By Haafidh Muhammad Zubayr

Whenever the topic of defending the Hadeeth comes, this is the question that often gets asked by the Rejectors of Hadeeth.

So the very first thing to note here is that, whatever is between the two covers of Saheeh Bukhaari is not a revelation from Allaah, and no one has claimed it so! Rather the right phrase is to say, “the revelation of Allaah is found in Saheeh Bukhaari, but Saheeh Bukhaari itself is not the revelation of Allaah”.

Second and a more important thing to note is that, “Hadeeth” is what we call revelation, not Saheeh Bukhaari. Saheeh Bukhaari CONTAINS that hadeeth, but not every single thing Saheeh Bukhaari contains is a Hadeeth! Hadeeth refers to that narration which contains the sayings, actions, or approvals of Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), while Saheeh Bukhaari also contains the sayings of the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een as well as the A’immah.

Third and even more important thing is that, no one ever refers to the Hadeeth as a “literal revelation”, on the contrary, Hadeeth is an “interpreted revelation”. Hence, the “meaning” of the hadeeth is a revelation from Allaah, but its “wording” is that of Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), if it is a Qawli Hadeeth. Similarly if it is a Fi’li Hadeeth (action of the Prophet) or a Taqreeri Hadeeth (Approval of the Prophet), then in that case the wording is that of a Sahaabi (Companion of Allaah’s Messenger). Now even though a lot of effort has been put in preserving the exact wording of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), the reality is that it is only his “meaning” that is preserved.

The rejectors of hadeeth do not usually take these key things under consideration when casting doubts on Ahaadeeth. Like, for example, they object on Saheeh Bukhaari by saying that it contains a story which says a monkey committed fornication and his fellow monkeys did rajam on him. Now Imaam Bukhaari has narrated this incident from Amr bin Maymoon, a taabi’ee, and it is him who says that I once saw such and such thing happening in Yemen. Now this is not even a Hadeeth, even though it is narrated in Saheeh Bukhaari.

Now as far as critiquing Saheeh Bukhaari is concerned, then the Imaams and experts of this field have already critiqued it and the Imaam and experts have also replied to those critiques. And now after all the criticisms and their answers, it has been clarified and made clear as to what those places are where criticism can possibly be done and what their answers are. And this conclusion has been reached after over a thousand years of practice. Now you cannot create a new objection on Saheeh Bukhaari, while those that were made in the past have already been answered.

That is why after all the extensive criticisms and their answers on Saheeh Bukhaari and Muslim, all those places in these books have been pointed out where any Ilal (Defect) are found, and the status of those Ilal has also been clarified as to whether those Ilal are Qaadiha (harmful) or not?

Now if someone tries to criticize a hadeeth of Saheeh Bukhaari or Saheeh Muslim basing it on the research of Imaam ad-Daaraqutni or any other Muhaddith from the A’immah of Salaf, then this criticism of his on Saheehayn will not be considered an independent criticism, and such a criticism has already been answered with a sufficient and convincing reply from Muhadditheen of the A’immah of Salaf themselves.

And if someone criticizes such a narration of Saheehayn which was not even criticized by anyone among the A’immah Salaf, then such a person is opposing the Ijmaa of Muhadditheen, because the narrations which the Muhadditheen did not lay a criticism on, proves that those were agreed upon to be Saheeh near all the Muhadditheen. Hence criticizing on those narrations simply means challenging the claim and Ijmaa of all the Muhadditheen. Such a criticism itself is not worth paying attention to, let alone doing its Tahqeeq.

ﻓﺘﻨﮧ ﺍﻧﮑﺎﺭ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ

ﻓﺘﻨﮧ ﺍﻧﮑﺎﺭ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﯽ ﺗﺎﺭﯾﺦ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺑﻐﯿﺮ ﮨﻢ ﺍﺱ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﮯ ﮐﻮ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺭﻭﺷﻨﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺩﯾﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿں

ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺁﺝ ﺗﮏ ﺟﺲ ﻧﮯ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﯽ ﺣﺠﯿﺖ ﮐﺎ ﺍﻧﮑﺎﺭ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﻣﺆﻗﻒ ﮐﮯ ﺛﺒﻮﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮨﯽ ﮐﯽ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺁﯾﺎﺕ ﺳﮯ ﻏﻠﻂ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﮐﯽ ﮐﻮﺷﺶ ﮐﯽ ﮨﮯ

ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﮨﺮ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺣﻖ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﮦ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﯽ ﺣﺠﯿﺖ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﮨﻤﯿﺖ ﮐﻮ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻣﺤﮑﻢ ﺁﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﮯ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮯ ﺳﮯ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﮐﯽ ﮐﻮﺷﺶ ﮐﺮﮮ

ﺍﺱ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺑﮯ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﺁﯾﺘﯿﮟ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﮨﯿﮟ،ﺍﻥ ﺳﺐ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺣﺎﻃﮧ ﺍﯾﮏ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﮧ ﺫﯾﻞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﮐﯽ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺁﯾﺎﺕ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﺗﯽ ﮨﯿﮟ

ﯾٰۤﺎَﯾُّﮩَﺎ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾۡﻦَ ﺍٰﻣَﻨُﻮۡۤﺍ ﺍَﻃِﯿۡﻌُﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﻭَ ﺍَﻃِﯿۡﻌُﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺳُﻮۡﻝَ ﻭَ ﺍُﻭﻟِ. ﺍﻟۡﺎَﻣۡﺮِ ﻣِﻨۡﮑُﻢۡ ۚ ………
ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎﺀ 56

 ﺍﮮ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻮ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﺮﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﺮﻭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺟﻮ ﺗﻢ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ‏)ہیں

 ﻣَﻦۡ ﯾُّﻄِﻊِ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺳُﻮۡﻝَ ﻓَﻘَﺪۡ ﺍَﻃَﺎﻉَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ۚ ﻭَ ﻣَﻦۡ ﺗَﻮَﻟّٰﯽ ﻓَﻤَﺎۤ ﺍَﺭۡﺳَﻠۡﻨٰﮏَ ﻋَﻠَﯿۡﮩِﻢۡ ﺣَﻔِﯿۡﻈًﺎ
‏ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎﺀ 8
ﺟﺲ ﻧﮯ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﯽ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﺲ ﻧﮯ ﺭﻭ ﮔﺮﺩﺍﻧﯽ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻮ ﮨﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺁﭖ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻥ ﭘﺮ ﻧﮕﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻨﺎ ﮐﺮ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯿﺠﺎ

 ﻗُﻞۡ ﺍِﻥۡ ﮐُﻨۡﺘُﻢۡ ﺗُﺤِﺒُّﻮۡﻥَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﻓَﺎﺗَّﺒِﻌُﻮۡﻧِﯽۡ ﯾُﺤۡﺒِﺒۡﮑُﻢُ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧُ ﻭَ ﯾَﻐۡﻔِﺮۡ ﻟَﮑُﻢۡ ﺫُﻧُﻮۡﺑَﮑُﻢۡ ؕ ﻭَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧُ ﻏَﻔُﻮۡﺭٌ ﺭَّﺣِﯿۡﻢٌ
‏ ﺁﻝ ﻋﻤﺮﺍﻥ 31

 ﮐﮩﻮ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺤﺒﺖ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﻮ ﺗﻮ ﻣﯿﺮﯼ ﺍﺗﺒﺎﻉ ﮐﺮﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻢ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺤﺒﺖ ﮐﺮﮮ ﮔﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺗﻤﮩﺎﺭﮮ ﮔﻨﺎﮦ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺩﮮ ﮔﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺑﺨﺸﮯ ﻭﺍﻻ ﺭﺣﻢ ﻭﺍﻻ ﮨﮯ

 ﻗُﻞۡ ﺍَﻃِﯿۡﻌُﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﻭَ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺳُﻮۡﻝَ ۚ ﻓَﺎِﻥۡ ﺗَﻮَﻟَّﻮۡﺍ ﻓَﺎِﻥَّ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﻟَﺎ ﯾُﺤِﺐُّ ﺍﻟۡﮑٰﻔِﺮِﯾۡﻦَ
‏ ﺁﻝ ﻋﻤﺮﺍﻥ 32

 ﮐﮩﻮ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﺮﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﯽ ﭘﺲ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻭﮦ ﺭﻭﮔﺮﺩﺍﻧﯽ ﮐﺮﯾﮟ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﺎﻓﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﻮ ﭘﺴﻨﺪ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ

 ﻗُﻞۡ ﯾٰۤﺎَﯾُّﮩَﺎ ﺍﻟﻨَّﺎﺱُ ﺍِﻧِّﯽۡ ﺭَﺳُﻮۡﻝُ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧِ ﺍِﻟَﯿۡﮑُﻢۡ ﺟَﻤِﯿۡﻌَۨﺎ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯼۡ ﻟَﮧٗ ﻣُﻠۡﮏُ ﺍﻟﺴَّﻤٰﻮٰﺕِ ﻭَ ﺍﻟۡﺎَﺭۡﺽِ ۚ ﻟَﺎۤ ﺍِﻟٰﮧَ ﺍِﻟَّﺎ ﮨُﻮَ ﯾُﺤۡﯽٖ ﻭَ ﯾُﻤِﯿۡﺖُ ۪ ﻓَﺎٰﻣِﻨُﻮۡﺍ ﺑِﺎﻟﻠّٰﮧِ ﻭَ ﺭَﺳُﻮۡﻟِﮧِ ﺍﻟﻨَّﺒِﯽِّ ﺍﻟۡﺎُﻣِّﯽِّ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯼۡ ﯾُﻮٔۡﻣِﻦُ ﺑِﺎﻟﻠّٰﮧِ ﻭَ ﮐَﻠِﻤٰﺘِﮧٖ ﻭَ ﺍﺗَّﺒِﻌُﻮۡﮦُ ﻟَﻌَﻠَّﮑُﻢۡ ﺗَﮩۡﺘَﺪُﻭۡﻥَ
‏ ﺍﻻﻋﺮﺍﻑ 158 ‏

 ﮐﮩﻮ ﺍﮮ ﻟﻮﮔﻮ ! ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻢ ﺳﺐ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﺎ ﺑﮭﯿﺠﺎ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮨﻮﮞ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﮦ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺁﺳﻤﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻦ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺎﺩﺷﺎﮨﯽ ﺍﺳﯽ ﮐﯽ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺳﻮﺍ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﻟﮧ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻭﮦ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﻮﺕ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﭘﺲ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﻻﺅ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﻧﺒﯽ ﺍﻣﯽ ﭘﺮ ﺟﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺎﺗﻮﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﺭﮐﮭﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﭘﯿﺮﻭﯼ ﮐﺮﻭ ﻋﺠﺐ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺗﻢ ﮐﺎﻣﯿﺎﺏ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺅ

ﻟﻔﻆ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺤﺚ

ﺍﻭﭘﺮ ﻧﻘﻞ ﮐﯽ ﮔﺌﯽ ﺁﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﮯ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮯ ﺳﮯ ﺟﺐ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﯽ ﺣﺠﯿﺖ ﮐﻮ ﺩﻭ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺩﻭ ﭼﺎﺭ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ . ﺗﻮ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻧﮑﺎﺭﯼ ﻟﻔﻆ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﭘﺮ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ

ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﺮﻧﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﺮﻧﯽ ﮐﺮﻧﯽ ﮨﮯ،
” ﯾﮧ ﺗﻮ ﺷﺮﮎ ﮨﮯ ”
ﺍﺱ ﮐﻮ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺩﻝ ﮐﺎ ﭨﯿﮍﮪ ﭘﻦ

ﺟﺐ ﺩﻝ ﮨﯽ ﭨﯿﮍﮬﺎ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﭘﮭﺮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﮐﺴﯽ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﭘﺮ ﮐﺎﻥ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺩﮬﺮﺗﺎ ﮐﯿﻮﻧﮑﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﺱ ﻃﺮﺡ ﮐﮯ ﻧﺎﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﺩﻝ ﭨﯿﮍﮬﺎ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﯾﮩﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺳﻨﺖ ﮨﮯ
ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﮐﮧ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺭﺷﺎﺩ ہے

ﻭَ ﺍِﺫۡ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﻣُﻮۡﺳٰﯽ ﻟِﻘَﻮۡﻣِﮧٖ ﯾٰﻘَﻮۡﻡِ ﻟِﻢَ ﺗُﻮٔۡﺫُﻭۡﻧَﻨِﯽۡ ﻭَ ﻗَﺪۡ ﺗَّﻌۡﻠَﻤُﻮۡﻥَ ﺍَﻧِّﯽۡ ﺭَﺳُﻮۡﻝُ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧِ ﺍِﻟَﯿۡﮑُﻢۡ ؕ ﻓَﻠَﻤَّﺎ ﺯَﺍﻏُﻮۡۤﺍ ﺍَﺯَﺍﻍَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧُ ﻗُﻠُﻮۡﺑَﮩُﻢۡ ؕ ﻭَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧُ ﻟَﺎ ﯾَﮩۡﺪِﯼ ﺍﻟۡﻘَﻮۡﻡَ ﺍﻟۡﻔٰﺴِﻘِﯿۡﻦَ
‏ ﺍﻟﺼﻒ 5 ‏

 ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﺐ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﻧﮯ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﻗﻮﻡ ﺳﮯ ﮐﮩﺎ ﺍﮮ ﻟﻮﮔﻮ ! ﺗﻢ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﻣﺠﮭﮯ ﺳﺘﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﻮ، ﺣﺎﻻﻧﮑﮧ ﺗﻢ ﺧﻮﺏ ﺟﺎﻧﺘﮯ ﮨﻮ ﮐﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺳﮯ ﺗﻤﮩﺎﺭﯼ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺑﮭﯿﺠﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﻮﮞ،
ﭘﺲ ﺟﺐ ﺍﻧﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﻧﺎﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻟﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﭨﯿﮍﮬﺎ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻓﺎﺳﻘﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﮨﺪﺍﯾﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ

ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﻮ ﺷﺮﮎ ﺳﮯ ﺗﻌﺒﯿﺮ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﺩﻝ ﮐﮯ ﭨﯿﮍﮪ ﭘﻦ ﮐﺎ ﺑﮩﺖ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺛﺒﻮﺕ ﮨﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻗﻤﺎﺵ ﮐﮯ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮨﯽ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﺎﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻟﮓ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮨﮯ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﺎﻧﺎ ﻣﺤﺎﻝ ﮨﮯ

ﺑﮩﺖ ﺳﺎﺩﮦ ﺳﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺕ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺍﺣﮑﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻤﯿﻞ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺻﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺕ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﺁﭖ ﮐﮯ ﺍﺣﮑﺎﻡ ﻭ ﻓﺮﺍﻣﯿﻦ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻤﯿﻞ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺁﭖ ﮐﯽ ﺳﻨﺖ ﻣﻄﮩﺮﮦ ﮐﯽ ﭘﯿﺮﻭﯼ ﮨﮯ

ﺭﻭﺯ ﺍﻭﻝ ﺳﮯ ﺁﺝ ﺗﮏ ﺍﻣﺖ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﺎ ﯾﮩﯽ ﻣﻔﮩﻮﻡ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ ﻣﺎﺳﻮﺍﺋﮯ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻧﺎﻡ ﻧﮩﺎﺩ ﻣﻔﺴﺮﯾﻦ ﮐﮯ

ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽﮧ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﮑﻞ ﺻﺎﻑ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺻﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﺷﺮﮎ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﻋﯿﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮨﮯ . ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻭﭘﺮ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﺮﯾﻢ ﮐﯽ ﭘﺎﻧﭻ ﺁﯾﺎﺕ ﺳﮯ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮨﮯ

ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ، ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﯿﺴﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﯽ؟

ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﯾﮧ ﺷﺎﻥ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﮦ ﺑﺮﺍﮦ ﺭﺍﺳﺖ ﮨﺮ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﮐﮯ ﭘﺎﺱ ﻟﺒﺎﺱ ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺁ ﮐﺮ ﺑﺘﺎﺋﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮨﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﺮﺍ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺷﺮﯾﮏ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻧﮯ ﺗﻢ ﮐﻮ ﭘﯿﺪﺍ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺗﻤﮩﺎﺭﮮ ﻟﺌﮯ ﺁﺳﻤﺎﻥ ﮐﻮ ﭼﮭﺖ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻦ ﮐﻮ ﻓﺮﺵ ﺑﻨﺎﯾﺎ، ﺳﻮﺭﺝ ﺍﻭﺭ ﭼﺎﻧﺪ ﮐﻮ ﺗﻤﮩﺎﺭﯼ ﺧﺪﻣﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻟﮕﺎ ﺩﯾﺎ
ﻟﺤﺎﻇﮧ ﻣﺠﮫ ﭘﺮ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﻻﺅ،

ﺍﮔﺮﭼﮧ ﮨﺮ ﻧﺎﻓﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺳﺮﮐﺶ ﻗﻮﻡ ﻧﮯ ﻭﻗﺖ ﮐﮯ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺳﮯ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﯽ ﺧﻮﺍﮨﺶ ﮐﺎ ﺍﻇﮩﺎﺭ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮨﻤﺎﺭﮮ ﺳﺎﻣﻨﮯ ﺁﺋﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﺍﯾﺴﺎ ﮐﺒﮭﯽ ﮨﻮﺍ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ
ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﺮﯾﻢ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﺋﯿﻞ ﮐﮯ ﺑﮯ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﻻﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﮐﺎ ﺫﮐﺮ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ. ﺍﻥ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﺎﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺑﺎﺕ ﯾﮧ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﮯ

ﻭَ ﺍِﺫۡ ﻗُﻠۡﺘُﻢۡ ﯾٰﻤُﻮۡﺳٰﯽ ﻟَﻦۡ ﻧُّﻮٔۡﻣِﻦَ ﻟَﮏَ ﺣَﺘّٰﯽ ﻧَﺮَﯼ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﺟَﮩۡﺮَۃً ﻓَﺎَﺧَﺬَﺗۡﮑُﻢُ ﺍﻟﺼّٰﻌِﻘَۃُ ﻭَ ﺍَﻧۡﺘُﻢۡ ﺗَﻨۡﻈُﺮُﻭۡﻥَ
‏ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺮۃ 55 ‏

 ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﺐ ﺗﻢ ﻧﮯ ﮐﮩﺎ ﺍﮮ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ! ﮨﻢ ﮨﺮﮔﺰ ﺁﭖ ﭘﺮ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻻﺋﯿﮟ ﮔﮯ ﺟﺐ ﺗﮏ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﻮ ﻇﺎﮨﺮﯼ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺩﯾﮑﮫ ﻧﮧ ﻟﯿﮟ ﭘﺲ ‏( ﺍﺱ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﮯ ﮐﯽ ﭘﺎﺩﺍﺵ ﻣﯿﮟ ‏) ﺗﻢ ﮐﻮ ﺑﺠﻠﯽ ﮐﯽ ﮐﮍﮎ ﻧﮯ ﺁ ﻟﯿﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺗﻢ ﺩﯾﮑﮫ ﮨﯽ ﺗﻮ ﺭﮨﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ

ﯾَﺴۡﺌَﻠُﮏَ ﺍَﮨۡﻞُ ﺍﻟۡﮑِﺘٰﺐِ ﺍَﻥۡ ﺗُﻨَﺰِّﻝَ ﻋَﻠَﯿۡﮩِﻢۡ ﮐِﺘٰﺒًﺎ ﻣِّﻦَ ﺍﻟﺴَّﻤَﺎٓﺀِ ﻓَﻘَﺪۡ ﺳَﺎَﻟُﻮۡﺍ ﻣُﻮۡﺳٰۤﯽ ﺍَﮐۡﺒَﺮَ ﻣِﻦۡ ﺫٰﻟِﮏَ ﻓَﻘَﺎﻟُﻮۡۤﺍ ﺍَﺭِﻧَﺎ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﺟَﮩۡﺮَۃً ﻓَﺎَﺧَﺬَﺗۡﮩُﻢُ ﺍﻟﺼّٰﻌِﻘَۃُ ﺑِﻈُﻠۡﻤِﮩِﻢۡ ۚ ……….
‏ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺎﺀ 153 ‏

 ﺍﮮ ﻧﺒﯽ ﺻﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﺍﮨﻞ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﺁﭖ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﮧ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﮨﻤﺎﺭﮮ ﺭﻭ ﺑﺮﻭ ﺁﺳﻤﺎﻥ ﺳﮯ ﺍﯾﮏ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﻟﮯ ﮐﺮ ﺁﺅ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﻣﻮﺳﯽ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﺳﮯ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺑﮍﺍ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﮧ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺗﮭﺎ، ﺍﻧﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﮐﮩﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﻮ ﻇﺎﮨﺮﯼ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮨﻤﯿﮟ ﺩﮐﮭﺎ ﺩﻭ، ﭘﺲ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﻇﻠﻢ ﮐﯽ ﭘﺎﺩﺍﺵ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﺠﻠﯽ ﮐﯽ ﮐﮍﮎ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺁ ﻟﯿﺎ

ﻭَ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾۡﻦَ ﻟَﺎ ﯾَﻌۡﻠَﻤُﻮۡﻥَ ﻟَﻮۡ ﻟَﺎ ﯾُﮑَﻠِّﻤُﻨَﺎ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧُ ﺍَﻭۡ ﺗَﺎۡﺗِﯿۡﻨَﺎۤ ﺍٰﯾَۃٌ ؕ ﮐَﺬٰﻟِﮏَ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾۡﻦَ ﻣِﻦۡ ﻗَﺒۡﻠِﮩِﻢۡ ﻣِّﺜۡﻞَ ﻗَﻮۡﻟِﮩِﻢۡ ؕ ﺗَﺸَﺎﺑَﮩَﺖۡ ﻗُﻠُﻮۡﺑُﮩُﻢۡ ؕ ﻗَﺪۡ ﺑَﯿَّﻨَّﺎ ﺍﻟۡﺎٰﯾٰﺖِ ﻟِﻘَﻮۡﻡٍ ﯾُّﻮۡﻗِﻨُﻮۡﻥَ
‏ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺮۃ 118 ‏

 ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﻮ ﻟﻮﮒ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺟﺎﻧﺘﮯ ﻭﮦ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮨﻢ ﺳﮯ ( ﺑﺮﺍﮦ ﺭﺍﺳﺖ ‏) ﮐﻼﻡ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ ﯾﺎ ﮨﻤﺎﺭﮮ ﭘﺎﺱ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﯽ ﺁﺋﮯ، ﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﭘﮩﻠﮯ ﻟﻮﮒ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﺳﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺎﺗﯿﮟ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﺗﮭﮯ، ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻝ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﮮ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻠﺘﮯ ﺟﻠﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﮨﻢ ﻧﮯ ﯾﻘﯿﻦ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ ﮐﮭﻮﻝ ﮐﮭﻮﻝ ﮐﺮ ﺁﯾﺘﯿﮟ ﺑﯿﺎﻥ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯼ ﮨﯿﮟ

ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟٰﯽ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﺍﺣﮑﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﺑﻨﺪﻭﮞ ﺗﮏ ﭘﮩﭽﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ ﺭﺳﻮﻟﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﻣﻨﺘﺨﺐ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺁﺗﺎ
ﺍﻭﺭ ﺭﺳﻮﻟﻮﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟٰﯽ ﮐﺘﺎﺑﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺻﺤﯿﻔﮯ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﺁﯾﺘﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺗﺸﺮﯾﺢ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﯿﺎﺭ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺭﺷﺎﺩ ﮨﮯ

ﻭَ ﺍَﻧۡﺰَﻟۡﻨَﺎۤ ﺍِﻟَﯿۡﮏَ ﺍﻟﺬِّﮐۡﺮَ ﻟِﺘُﺒَﯿِّﻦَ ﻟِﻠﻨَّﺎﺱِ ﻣَﺎ ﻧُﺰِّﻝَ ﺍِﻟَﯿۡﮩِﻢۡ ﻭَ ﻟَﻌَﻠَّﮩُﻢۡ ﯾَﺘَﻔَﮑَّﺮُﻭۡﻥَ
ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻞ 44 ‏
ﺍﻭﺭ ﮨﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺁﭖ ﭘﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺫﮐﺮ ‏( ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ‏) ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺗﺎﮐﮧ ﺟﻮ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﻟﺌﮯ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﺍﺳﮯ ﺁﭖ ﮐﮭﻮﻝ ﮐﮭﻮﻝ ﮐﺮ ﺑﯿﺎﻥ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﮟ ﺷﺎﯾﺪ ﻭﮦ ﻏﻮﺭ ﻭ ﻓﮑﺮ ﮐﺮﯾﮟ

ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺑﮯ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﺁﯾﺘﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﺍﯾﮏ ﯾﮧ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺟﺲ ﮐﯽ ﺑﻨﯿﺎﺩ ﭘﺮ ﻧﺒﯽ ﺻﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﮐﻮ ﺷﺎﺭﺡ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﮩﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ

The Kufr of Rejecting Hadith

QUESTION
Some people say that they believe in only the Qur’ān, not in Hadith. They reject all Ahaadith claiming it to be spurious, and fabrications. Please expound on this issue in the light of the Qur’ān.

ANSWER (by Mujlisul Ulama): 
The deniers of Hadith are in reality rejectors of the Qur’ān. They are confirmed kuffaar. They are among the Munaafiqeen breed of kuffaar. It is not possible to honestly believe in the Qur’ān without believing in Hadith. Minus Hadith there is no Qur’ān – no Islam. The entire structure of Islam – its foundation and its edifice are 100% reliant on Hadith.

On what basis do these moron munaafiqeen/ kuffaar believe in the authenticity of the Qur’ān? The Shiahs, presenting their “rationale” for rejecting the authenticity of the Qur’ān, claim that the compilers of the Qur’ān, namely the Sahaabah, had reneged from Islam becoming murtaddeen, hence a compilation by them is a false fabrication. This is their convoluted satanic logic for presenting ‘logical’ argument to deny the authenticity of the Qur’ān. On the other hand, these modernist kuffaar professing to be Muslims “accept”, that is ostensibly in the manner of the Munaafiqeen, the authenticity of the Qur’ān, but in common with the Shiahs deny the integrity of the Sahaabah. Thus, their ‘acceptance’ of the Qur’ān is more illogic than the Shiah deniers of the Qur’ān.

The deniers of Hadith (the modernist zanaadaqah) have absolutely no valid, rational and logical daleel (proof) for claiming that the Qur’ān is authentic that the Qur’ān is Divine Revelation (Wahi) – that it was Jibraeel (Alayhis Salaam) who had conveyed the Divine Revelation to Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).

All these irrefutable facts and information, and the entire Structure of Islam is substantiated by the Hadith. The imperative corollary for accepting the authenticity of the Qur’ān is acceptance of the authenticity of Hadith.

The Qur’ān was not revealed in a completed book form. It did not descend from the clouds in a compiled book as did the Tauraah to Nabi Musa (Alayhis Salaam). The zanaadaqah will agree that the Qur’ān was revealed over a period of many years – 23 years. Since they do accept this irrefutable fact, they are obliged to answer rationally the following questions:

1. How do you know that the Qur’ān is the Book of Allah?

2. How do you know that the Qur’ān is an authentic Book?

3. How do you know that the Qur’ān was authentically piled?

4. How do you know that the order in which the Verses and Surahs is divine or was instructed by Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)?

5. How do you know of the validity of the different modes of Qiraa’t?

6. How do you know that command to perform Salaat mentioned numerous times in the Qur’ān refer to specifically the five daily Salaat? The Qur’ān does not provide any precise information in this regard.

7. How do you know the number of the fardh and Sunnat raka’ts of each of the five daily Salaat?

8. How do you know of the specific modality of Salaat that it requires, Qiyām, Ruku, Qa’dah, Sajdah, etc. etc.? Nothing of these rules is mentioned in the Qur’ān.

9. Similarly, how do you know of the vast multitude of rules and regulations governing all spheres of Islam is Life? There is  no reference to these laws, tenets, practices, etc. in the Qur’ān.

10. Yes, how do you know that the Qur’ān was revealed to Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)?

The answers to these questions are obtainable from only the Hadith. There is absolutely no other source besides the Hadith for accepting the Qur’ān as the kitaab of Allah Ta’ala. Those who reject Hadith, in reality reject Allah Ta’ala. Confirming this truth, the Qur’ān Majid states:

“Verily, those who commit kufr with Allah and His Messengers, and they intend to differentiate between Allah (i.e. His Kitaab) and His Messengers (i.e. the Ahaadith), and they say: “We believe in a portion (i.e the Qur’ān) and we reject a portion (i.e the Hadith), thereby intending to follow a path (of their base desires) in between, indeed they are the veritable kaafiroon. We have prepared for the kaafireen a disgraceful punishment. [An-Nisā,  Aayaat 150, 151]

In these gracious verses, Allah Ta’ala states with profound clarity that those who reject Hadith, i.e. the statements and practices of the Nabi, are Kaafiroon. To emphasize the incorrigible kufr of these Zanaadaqah and Munaafiqeen, Allah Ta’ala uses the term haqqan which means in reality, without doubting, most certainly. There is not a vestige of doubt in the kufr of the Zanaadaqah who deny and reject Hadith. Denial of Hadith is in fact  denial of the Qur’ān. It is tantamount to accepting a part of the Qur’ān and rejecting a part. And this renders these types of morons ‘kaafiroon haq-qan’.

Commanding acceptance of Hadith, Allah Ta’ala says:

“Whoever obeys the Rasool, verily he has obeyed Allah. And whoever turns away (rejecting the Hadith of the Rasool), then (know) that We did not send you (O Muhammad!) as a guard over them.” [An-Nisā, 79]

Without accepting what the Rasool said and had done, it is not possible to accept and obey Allah Ta’ala. What Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, is Hadith. Whatever he did, is Hadith. This āyat and many other Qur’aanic verses explicitly state that obedience to Allah Ta’ala is inextricably interwoven with obediences to His Rasool.

“Hold on to that which he (the Nabi) gives you. And abstain from whatever he forbids you.” [Al-Hashr, 7]

Rasulullah’s acts which the Qur’ān commands us to adhere to, and his prohibitions from which we have to abstain are all in the Hadith, not in the Qur’ān.

It should be well understood that the reality of Hadith rejection is Qur’ān rejection. When Hadith is rejected, Allah Ta’ala is rejected. Stating this reality, the Qur’ān says:

“Verily, we are aware that you (O Muhammad!) are grieved by what they are saying. (But in reality) most certainly, they are not belying (rejecting) you. But (on the contrary), the zaalimeen (brutal oppressors) are denying the Aayaat (i.e the Qur’ān) of Allah.” [An’aam, 33]

Belief in the Qur’ān without belief in the Hadith is a Qur’ānic and a rational impossibility. An ‘islam’ developed on the Qur’ān minus Hadith, is Satanism. It is a religion of Shaitaan.

These moron modernist zanaadaqah who are the slaves of base desire and the agents of Iblees deny Hadith in order to perpetrate unbridled corrupt interpretation of the Aayaat of the Qur’ān to appease their whimsical shaitaani fancies and the lustful dictates of the nafs. Since the Hadith places a firm clamp on their inordinate nafsaani cravings, they deny and reject one great portion of Wahi (Divine Revelation), namely, Hadith. In so doing, these modernist Juhhaal are, in Qur’ānic terminology: “Kafiroon Haq-qan.”

Response to the Modernist Contention: “It is Not in the Qur’aan!”

By Mujlisul Ulama

SOME IGNORAMUSES WHEN arguing to negate a confirmed tenet of the Shariah, surface with the retort: “It is not in the Qur’aan!”. At the juncture when this argument is presented, it should be realized that the best response for such mental density and total ignorance is to adopt the following Qur’aanic advice: “And when the jaahlioon (ignoramuses) address them (the Mu’mineen), they say: ‘Peace”. In other words, the intelligent Mu’min honourably terminates the discussion and does not degenerate to the level of ignorance of his adversary.

In the context of academic and rational debate and discussion, the aforementioned retort perhaps is the lowest ebb of ignorance. A man who is equipped with even a basic understanding of the Shariah – he need not be an Aalim – understands the ludicrousness of this argument which exposes the total jahaalat (ignorance) of the one presenting this stupidity.

Firstly, the invalidity of this argument is conspicuously manifest because the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah (the Followers of the Four Math-habs) do not claim that Islam with its Divine Shariah is confined to the Qur’aan Majeed. It never was the contention of any authority of the Shariah, that everything of Islam is to be found in the Qur’aan in detailed form. It is not contended that the Qur’aan is the only Source of the Shariah. This retort would be appropriate only if directed to deviates who claim that every iota of the Islamic Shariah is found in the Qur’aan. But we are not concerned with such deviates. There may be a deviate sect known as Ahlul Qur’aan, who may proffer the preposterous principle that whatever is not in the Qur’aan is not Islam. But there never existed such a legal quibble in the jurisprudence of the Shariah.

The absence of a specific rule, teaching, custom, practice, etc. from the Qur’aan is not grounds for invalidity or spuriousness of such a tenet. Morons for example argue that since the incumbency of the beard is not stated in the Qur’aan, keeping a beard is not Waajib (obligatory). Morons of this calibre who operate within the extremely restrictive confines of their ignorance and lack of knowledge of the Shariah are too dense in the mind to understand that the performance of the five daily Fardh Salaat too is not found in the Qur’aan. The number of Fardh, Sunnat, Witr and Nafl raka’ts, the methodology of Salaat such as the particular method of Qiyaam, Ruku’, Sajdah, Qiraa’t, folding the hands, Qa’dah, Tashahhud, Durood, Dua, Salaam and the myriad of specific masaail related to Salaat are not to be found anywhere in the Qur’aan.

In fact, the term ‘salaat’ literally means to supplicate, to bestow blessings, to praise, tasbeeh (to glorify), mercy, etc. It does not mean the specific and peculiar style of Islamic prayer which we perform five times a day. Similarly, Zakaat and the innumerable rules regulating this fundamental institution of Islam are not to be found anywhere in the Qur’aan. 

The Qur’aan merely commands: “Establish Salaah and give Zakaah”. If the stupid ‘principle’, ‘it is not in the Qur’aan’, has to be applied, 95% of the Shariah will have to be expunged. The Qur’aan is the Divine Scripture of Guidance in which reference is made to some tenets of Islam, and on the basis of which the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen (the highest category of Jurists of Islam) have evolved the immutable Usool (Principles) of the Islamic Shariah.

The greater part of the Shariah comprises of the teachings of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which are encapsulated in his verbal pronouncements and practical demonstrations. Further, a great part of Islam is based on Qur’aanic and Hadith principles evolved by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen. Thus, the argument: ‘It is not in the Qur’aan’, is the dictum of morons who are academically bankrupt, and who are absolutely bereft of the slightest vestige of congeniality with knowledge. The Sources of Islam are Kitaabullah (The Qur’aan), the Sunnah (the verbal and practical expressions of Rasulullah – sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Ijma’ (the Consensus of the Authorities of Islam), and Qiyaas (the Shariah’s process of Analogical Reasoning).

So, when any crank or moron flings the argument, ‘It is not in the Qur’aan’, your only response should be: “Our Islam is not confined to the Qur’aan. Peace on you. We do not engage the Jaahileen in discussion.”

Refuting Rashad Khalifa’s Difference between Prophet and Messenger

By Ebrahim Saifuddin

Rashad Khalifa (the mini-dajjal), claimed to be a messenger of Allah Ta’ala and to justify that messengers can come even after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), he inversed the definitions of the words ‘prophet’ and ‘messenger’. His followers known as ‘Submitters’ or ‘Submitters International’, back this claim of his and choose to accept the misinterpretations given by him. Muslims believe that the difference between a prophet and a messenger is that messengers are sent to a particular nation. A prophet also always follows the law given to the messenger before him and does not introduce new laws. Messengers on the other hand either bring in completely new laws or alter the laws of the past. These are the fundamentals differences between a messenger and a prophet. In short, all messengers are prophets but all prophets are not messengers.

Rashad’s Misinterpretation and its Refutation

Rashad Khalifa however wishes to intertwine and twist one verse of the Qur’an to show that the definitions are the other way round. He quotes the Qur’an:

When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I lay upon you) in this (matter)? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you. – [Qur’an 3:81]

Then he distorts the meaning of the verse saying that prophets are the ones to receive a Scripture and knowledge while the messengers are the ones who come to confirm what was revealed to the prophets. A proper analysis of the verse would prove that Rashad Khalifa only misinterpreted and twisted the meaning of the above verse.

This verse speaks about the time when man was not yet physically created but existed spiritually with their Lord. Then Allah Ta’ala took the covenant from the prophets. Do note that the verse says “then comes to you a messenger”, the phrase “a messenger” is very important in trying to understand this verse. This verse is speaking of a single messenger that will come and all the prophets will have to believe in him. Who is this single messenger that will come confirming that which is with the ones in the past? That messenger is none other than Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who came after all the ones in the past and confirmed to that which was sent to them. Had this verse said, “then comes to you messengers, confirming what is with you”, then Rashad could have had a stronger foundation to build his misinterpretations upon.

Further, Rashad Khalifa wishes to imply that this verse includes Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and this it cannot be referring to him. The answer to this lies in the Qur’an itself. When we read the context of the verse we see that 3:81 is part of the evidence that Allah Ta’ala is giving to the people who doubted the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Later on it continues and in 3:84 we see Allah Ta’ala saying:

Say (O Muhammad): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. – [Qur’an 3:84]

This is the messenger which Allah Ta’ala referred to as “a messenger” who will confirm that which was sent before him and thus is evidence enough to know that Prophet Muhammad was not included in the verse 3:81. If the verse 3:81 was referring to Rashad then 3:84 would have included the name of Prophet Muhammad (salallahu alayhi wasallam) as well.

Moreover this also proves that Rashad’s claim that it is the prophets and not the messengers who receive the Book is seriously flawed because Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), a messenger according to these verses, did receive a Book.

Scriptures were also given to the prophets but the difference was that they did not have in them the law. For example Ibrahim (alayhissalaam) who is always referred to in the Quran as a ‘prophet’ was given suhufi as seen from the Quran:

But the Hereafter is better and more enduring. And this is in the Books of the earliest (Revelation),- The Books of Abraham and Moses. – [Qur’an 87:17-19]

Thus the Quranic verse is not incorrect in any sense when applying the true meaning of prophets and messengers. Prophets did get books and so did the messengers and thus when the Quran says ‘prophets’ it encompasses all the prophets who did get the books which include messengers. It is thus obvious that receiving a scripture is not the criteria to differentiate between a prophet and a messenger.

Evidence Supporting Rashad and its Refutation

Supporting evidence provided by people who wish to cling onto the misinterpretation by Rashid is the following verse:

And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant: – [Qur’an 33:7]

Thus they conclude that this verse is referring to 3:81 and as a result Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is included in 3:81. What they fail to do is read the very next verse which says:

That (Allah) may question the (custodians) of Truth concerning the Truth they (were charged with): And He has prepared for the Unbelievers a grievous Penalty. – [Qur’an 33:8]

Reading this verse makes it clear that Allah Ta’ala is referring to a different covenant and not the one in 3:81. Hence without a question Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is the one referred to in 3:81 and is not
included in the verse.

Analysis of other verses quoted by Rashad Khalifa

“Never would a human being whom GOD blessed with the scripture and prophethood say to the people, “Idolize me beside GOD.” Instead, (he would say), “Devote yourselves absolutely to your Lord alone,” according to the scripture you preach and the teachings you learn.”  – [Qur’an 3:79]

“Those were the ones to whom we have given the scripture, wisdom, and prophethood. If these people disbelieve, we will substitute others in their place, and the new people will not be disbelievers.”  – [Qur’an 6:89]

“We granted him Isaac and Jacob, we assigned to his descendants prophethood and the scriptures, we endowed him with his due recompense in this life, and in the Hereafter he will surely be with the righteous.” – [Qur’an 29:27]

“We have given the Children of Israel the scripture, wisdom, and prophethood, and provided them with good provisions; we bestowed upon them more blessings than any other people.” – [Qur”an 45:16]

“We sent Noah and Abraham, and we granted their descendants prophethood and the scripture. Some of them were guided, while many were wicked.”  – [Qur’an 57:26]

Using all these verses Rashad Khalifa wants to prove that it is not the messengers but the prophets who receive the books. A person who believes in this misinterpretation of Rashad Khalifa would know at a glance that these verses do not support his claim and instead support the Muslim view. I will use Rashad Khalifa’s interpretation to refute his claim. According to him, prophets are the ones to whom are given the books. So if we are to take that explanation, why does the Quran mention the two separately in all these cases? Shouldn’t it then be obvious that a person given prophethood will be given a book? Why does the Quran mention them separately? Mentioning them separately would mean that while they are given prophethood, which is one thing, they are also given scriptures, which is another. Hence prophethood does not necessarily mean that they are given the scriptures.

Rashad Khalifa’s explanation stands on a very weak foundation and thus crumbles at the simplest of analysis.

Conclusion

Rashad Khalifa’s difference between a prophet and a messenger has been disproved throughout this article. The entire foundation of the misinterpretation by Rashad is based on a single verse from the Quran (Chapter 3, verse 81). The explanation of the verse is given in this article and it clearly refutes Rashid Khalifa. The verse does not include Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and is referring to the coming of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It refers to Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as a messenger who will come to attest that
which was sent before him. Messengers are sent with some changes in the previous law. Some might argue that Prophet ‘Eesa (alayhissalaam) did not change the law but they are incorrect in this assumption. The Qur’an mentions prophet ‘Eesa (alayhissalaam) saying:

(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.” – [Qur’an 3:50]

Thus it is seen that Prophet ‘Eesa (alayhissalaam) did bring a change in the law and thus is referred to as in the Quran as a Messenger. Prophet Ibrahim(as) did not bring a law but did receive a book and thus is referred to
as only a Prophet.

Hence it is evident that all Messengers are prophets but all prophets are not Messengers.

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.