Defence of the hadith
|
|  Yüklə 1.18 Mb.
|
( 11 ) “…and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another.” (6:165) The upright among the Prophet’s Companions were feeling so restrained and hesitant of reporting any tradition from the Prophet. Further, Umar used to be so severe against anyone narrating abundantly the Prophet’s traditions, and even he would beat those narrators with his gem (durrah), as he did with Abu Hurayrah, threatening him with exile out of the Medina toward his homeland in Yemen, if he would resume reporting the traditions. It is reported that the Prophet himself has forbidden the writing down of his traditions, never liking other than the Qur’anic verses being inscribed from him. All this was stated by the author in his book, without contriving it himself, but it being something all ingenious among Muslim scholars used to utter and state in their books, as practised by Ibn Taymiyyah and his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim and others. But the traditionists have forgotten or turned away from this, the fact that caused confusion and misconception among people regarding whatever is related to hadith. The author’s favour in demonstrating this fact, particularly in the present age, lies in creating the opportunity for reading and observing it by those desiring their religion to be ameliorated and be immune against any confusion or miscellany. However, the author has exceeded proper bounds in some places. It is out of scope here to refer to all of these places and occasions, for sake of brevity and evading extravagance in prolongation, but I suffice with citing some examples. Let’s take Ka’b al-Ahbar, who was a Jew that embraced Islam during the reign of Umar. We are informed by the narrators that he apprised Umar of his being slain within three nights. When asked by Umar about its proof and evidence, he claimed that it could be found in the Torah. Umar was astonished at hearing that his name be referred to in the Torah. But Ka’b told him that what was mentioned in the Torah was his attribute and not his name. The next day he came to him saying: Only two days are left (for his murder). On the third day he came to him in the morning exclaiming: Two days have passed ( 12 ) and only one is left…and you will be verily killed tomorrow. As that day approached, and during morning prayer, the non-Arab slave came toward him (Umar) and stabbed him while he was arranging the rows for (performing) the prayers. The author affirms that Umar was murdered due to a plot hatched and engineered by Hurmuzan, with collaboration of Ka’b, assuring that this conspiracy was certain in whose certainty no doubt could be raised but only by the ignorant and illiterate people. I want to assure the author that I am one of those illiterate people, since I doubt this intrigue so intensely, never considering it more than an imagination. As that wretched slave killed himself before questioning him. Ubayd Allah ibn Umar also hastened in slaying Hurmuzan before any investigation. While Ka’b al-Ahbar survived for seven or eight years, without being interrogated or accused by anyone with the charge of collaboration in this plot. He most often used to frequent to Uthman. Then he departed Medina betaking himself toward Hams, residing in it till his death in the 32 Hijrah year. So how could the author emphasize, first of all, the occurrence of this conspiracy, and collaboration of Ka’b in it on the other hand. However, all Muslims became so furious and displeased at the hasty move of Ubayd Allah ibn Umar in slaying Hurmuzan out of ignorance and calumny against him, without handing him to the Caliph, or establishing the testimony against him, since he has, in a way or another, participated in murdering his father. A group of the Prophet’s Companions insisted on the Caliph (Uthman) to enforce the determined punishment (hadd) against Ubayd Allah, as he killed a Muslim man without introducing him to be tried by the ruler, and without establishing any proof against him confirming that he has slain Umar. Despite all that, Uthman pardoned him, fearing that people would say: Umar was killed yesterday, and today his son is to be killed. This pardon was counted by those who rebelled against Uthman as one of his blunders. When Ali (A) came to power, he was determined to punish Ubayd Allah for the crime he perpetrated. But the latter escaped Ali and sought shelter with Mu’awiyah, under whose protection he lived in security, till he was killed in the Battle of ( 13 ) Siffin. It is known that Uthman has never inquired Ka’b about anything, with no one accusing him with any charge. He departed the Medina toward the Sham where Mu’awiyah was its governor. He, without being questioned by Mu’awiyah about anything, lived there till he died. So what is the source or the evidence for this emphasis, upon which the author has persisted to the extent he damned Ka’b, though he was unfit for that? What is commonly known about Ka’b is that he has embraced Islam, and it is known too that to curse him by Muslims being impermissible. Another example, is that his (author’s) claim that the motive behind Abu Hurayrah’s keeping the Prophet’s company was not affection toward him, or seeking to acquire the religiosity and guidance he had, but he accompanied him out of the desire to fill and satiate his abdomen, claiming that he (Ka’b) was a destitute and his sustenance was provided by the Prophet (S). For proving this, the author cites a hadith reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and al-Bukhari too. But the same hadith was reported by Muslim from Abu Hurayrah, the text of which being more expressive and clear-cut than the one reported by al-Bukhari and Ibn Hanbal. Abu Hurayrah was claiming that he was serving the Prophet in return for satiating his abdomen (hunger). And there is difference between one who says he was serving, and one saying he was keeping the company of. In such cases, having good opinion of someone is worse than having evil one. And I never surmise that Abu Hurayrah has come forward with those coming from Yemen toward the Prophet (S), neither for declaring allegiance to him nor for learning religion under his hand, but only for filling his abdomen. This is verily exaggeration in interpretation and evil-mindedness. The author is so severe and stern toward Abu Hurayrah that I am afraid he has gone somewhat to the extreme. As we know that Abu Hurayrah was prolific in reporting the traditions from the Prophet, and that Umar used to be so strict against him in this respect, with some of the Prophet’s Companions disapproving many of the traditions he reported, charging him with depending extensively upon Ka’b al-Ahbar in his reporting. It was feasible for the author to ( 14 ) record all those remarks in an objective way, as is said, without plaguing himself into them angrily or rancorously. Since what he is writing is not a story or literature so as to show off his character with all its components including fury, grudge and rancour. But he is supposedly writing about a scholar and a science linked to religion. And it is known that the most outstanding merit of the scholars, especially in the present age, being self-denial when writing about knowledge and their use of their minds and intellects when researching and determining, not their emotions. So it is unfair to claim that the only reason behind Abu Hurayrah’s company to the Prophet was to take food from him, while we know that he embraced Islam, prayed behind the Prophet, hearing and taking some of his traditions. Let the author say he has not enjoyed the Prophet’s company but only for three years, while the traditions he reported from him exceeded in number those reported by the Emigrants who accompanied the Prophet in Mecca and Medina, and by the Helpers who kept the Prophet’s company since his migration toward Medina till he was called by Allah. This can be a sufficient factor for taking precaution and being on guard toward all the traditions reported about him. The other point I want to state here being that the author, in his protracted hadith about Abu Hurayrah, says that he, out of his covetousness to eating and eagerness for dainties, used to eat with Mu’awiyah and perform his prayers behind Ali, with pronouncing: Eating with Mu’awiyah is fattier, (or in more precise words: al-murdirah with Mu’awiyah is fattier [murdirah is a kind of sweet]), and to pray with Ali is better. I want to know how could it be able for Abu Hurayrah to eat with Mu’awiyah and perform prayers with Ali simultaneously, while one of them being in Iraq and the other in the Sham, or one being in the Medina and the other in the Sham, unless this be done during Battle of Siffin. But I never believe him to be safe if doing so during the war, since in that case he would have been accused by one of the two sects with hypocrisy and espionage. While these words being recorded only in some books, the author would have rather investigated and verified the truth before stating them. This being the ( 15 ) least and easiest requirement on the part of the scholars. Further, the author persists on emphasizing the fact concurred unanimously by Muslims that the traditions narrated by individuals and single persons (ahad) as said by the traditionists, can never indicate but only surmise. For this reason the Muslims never take these traditions as inferential evidences for the principles (usul) and doctrines of religion but only for the sub-rules of fiqh and virtuous deeds, besides using them for urging to do good and intimidation and warning against vices. And all the traditions on which the author based his speech about the subjects we cited examples for, being only ahadith reported by individuals and ahad (with no authentic chain), never indicating decisiveness or certainty. So how would he allow himself to abstain from trusting such traditions, depending on them then for accusing people with charges failing to present evidences to their confirmation. The last remark to conclude my discussion, which I consider brief, though seeming protracted, being that the author, after realizing – seemingly – his failure to gain pleasure of people beside inability to win the hearts of the clergy in particular, embarked on defaming them some time, slaming them another time, and labelling them again with thought inertia once and with marginality another time. Through all this, he seduced these people by his self, calling them to heed only to his book, with imagining that he was detesting them and never counting them fitting and competent for valuable researching and endeavour to discover knowledge realities. Had he tolerated till the coming out of his book, and be read by people, so as to know their opinion and commentary on it, this tolerance and patience would have much better and preservative for him. Nevertheless, I affirm again my admittance to the author’s strenuous and fertile strival and effort in compiling this book, and his genuine sincerity for knowledge and truth in his searching for hadith. Hence, no harm will befall him for the slips to some of which we referred previously. Since those who are immune against deficiency, neglect of duty and slips are rarely found. And Bashshar uttered the truth when ( 16 ) saying: If you never drink bitterness over speck, Thirsty you be, and is there anyone of pure drink! Taha Husayn ( 17 ) The Author’s Response This was the precious foreword which Dr. Taha Husayn published about the book “Adwa’ ‘ala al-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah” after reading it. Had I be obliged to present to him the most sincere and deepest gratitude, for the extreme care he exerted for my book, making him to read it more than once, but which delights me – for which I praise God – being that his lordship, though being the honourable scholar and renowned critic, has never put his hand on anything liable to be censured, from among the book’s topics – that all being critical – which no book had ever contained, except some points that seemed for him “mere slips for which he is not to blame” as he expressed himself in his foreword.1 On the margin of these slips I give the following brief comment, hoping it win his pleasure and approval. The first of these slips being his raising doubt about the plot to assassinate Umar, and the collaboration of Ka‘b al-Ahbar in it. On reading his words in this respect, I smiled and asked myself, how would the truth of such a thing be unrealized by him while he being the investigating and penetrating scholar. I eagerly awaited the publication of his book al-Shaykhan, so as to see his opinion in regard of murder of Umar. As soon as I read what he stated in this book on this issue, I became rest assured regarding what I referred to in my book, thanking Allah for finding the doubt raised in the mind of Dr. Taha Husayn concerning the intrigue to kill Umar, be vanished, praise be to God.2 The second slip, claiming that I have gone too far in interpretation when saying that Abu Hurayrah has embraced Islam only for filling his abdomen (satiating his hunger). Whereas the fact being that the only reason behind my reference to this matter lies in Abu Hurayrah’s confession to this 1. This foreword was published in al-Jumhuriyyah newspaper, in the issue of Tuesday 25 November 1958. 2. The book al-Shaykhan, pp 256,257. ( 18 ) fact throughout many hadith books. For instance, al-Bukhari has reported from him his saying: I have kept the Prophet’s company only for filling my belly. And again according to Muslim’s narration, he said: I have been at the service of the Prophet in recompense for filling my belly. And confession, as held by men of law and legislation, is the head of evidences. Thus I have never interpreted or gone to the extreme in this regard, beside the fact that Abu Hurayrah’s biography confirms his confession. As Ibn Sa’d has narrated about him that before embracing Islam he was hired for Ibn Affan and his son Ghazwan with his wage being only food for sustenance. And after his converting to Islam, when he was a lodger at the Siffah, he has done (indecent) things that were demonstrated by al-Bukhari himself and other scholars, which it is out of scope to refer to them here. Whereas the third and last slip being the Doctor’s doubt regarding what I narrated, that Abu Hurayrah used to eat mudirah with Mu’awiyah and perform his prayers behind Ali, and that how it would be feasible for Abu Hurayrah to behave in this way with being in safe from being accused by any of the two sects with hypocrisy and espionage! First of all, I would like to tell that references were made to this report in numerous works for eminent historians and scholars like: Shadharat al-dhahab of al-Imad al-Hanbali; al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah of Burhan al-Din al-Halabi; al-Zamakhshari in Rabi’ al-Abrar and Asas al-balaghah; Badi’ al-Zaman al-Hamadani who not only was among renowned writers, but also – as known from his biography – a trustable (thiqah) traditionist having full knowledge in rijal and texts; beside al-Tha’alibi in al-Mudaf wa al-mansub. It is needless to mention all the reference books containing this report, though he who so doing would not fear any loss, since it was commonly known that he (Abu Hurayrah) was neither here nor there (of no use), and was never among the warriors, keeping throughout all his life to be a man of pacifistic nature. Concerning the harshness in my style (of speech) observed by Dr. Taha, my response is, had he got to know the abundance of slanders and ( 19 ) abuses I encountered since the day of publishing some chapters of this book in al-Risalah journal before having the book printed, he would have excused me for what I stated. However, I have reviewed my writings and revised all the severe statements I made in the book, deleting them from this edition, preferring to repel evil with that which is better, heeding to God’s commandment, passing then by whatever befalling me with dignity (forbearance), with addressing whoever vexing me with the word of peace. In regard of the severity against Abu Hurayrah, to which the Professor referred, it was never on our part, but it was verily the strength and decisiveness of the proofs encircling him from all sides. These were brief lines about the slips referred to by Dr. Taha Husayn in his book. I am so delighted that he has never found fault with any of the book’s topics, which being numerous and critical, the likes of which were never published in any all-inclusive book. And also for his calling what he noticed only slips, with expressly saying: “He is not to blame for the slips, to some of which I have referred, since those who are exonerated of defect or deficiency or slips being rarely found nowadays.” May God preserve him. Mahmud Abu Riyyah In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent the Merciful “And those who shun the worship of the idols3 and turn they unto God, for them is the glad tidings, so bear thou the glad tidings unto My servants. Those who hearken unto the word and follow the best of it; those are they whom God hath guided; and those it is who are the men of understanding.” (39: 17,18) Definition of the Book It is almost concurred among all, with no need for any proof, that the Muhammadan hadith being so esteemed and sublime that requiring the best care and accurate research, so as to study and learn the treasures it contains, of religion, morals, wisdoms and precepts, beside other worldly and hereafter advantages and interests. But, despite the dignified position and noble status it had, the scholars and men of letters have never given it the due attention, care and investigation, leaving it to be handled and circulated by the so-called men of hadith, studying it according to their way of thinking. The method adopted by these people was based on inanimate unchangeable principles. So we see the former ones among them, who laid down these rules, have confined their attention on recognizing the hadith narrators, and searching – as much as possible – into their biography, never caring then about whatever uttered by them: whether being veracious or not, reasonable or other than this. The reason behind this being their full dependence upon the 3. Worshipping and obeying the taghut being always the cause leading to tyranny and renegadineg from religion, on the part of a creatures who is worshipped a chief who is imitated and a desire (hawa) which is followed. Ibn al-Qayyim said: The taghut is everything with which the bondman trespasses his limits, as a worshipped or followed or obeyed person.The Taghut of every people is that whom they take as a judge to settle their disputer, other than Allah and His Messenger, or worship other than Allah, or follow him with no perception from Allah, and obey him in matters which they know to be submitted to Allah. ( 21 ) sanad (chain of transmitters) alone, without any slight regard for the meaning and denotation. Then it was the turn of their successors, who blindly stuck at the limits and boundaries laid by those who preceded them, without even thinking of trespassing or turning away from them. Thus the science of riwayah (narration), since the earlier centuries, became so rigid and lifeless without any vitality or change. Then we noticed how these and those people clung only to the superficialities of hadith as indicated by the narrations, fully believing in and following without the slightest investigation or verification. While doing their utmost in studying science of hadith, extremely caring for its sanad to the extent it was said: The science of hadith has fully developed and was burnt,4 but on the other hand they have all neglected a highly serious point that had to be realized and conceived before going into this science and studying its books. This point being searching for the real context of the veracious traditions uttered by the Prophet (S), and whether he has commanded to write down this very text when disclosing it – as he did in the case of the Qur’an – or ignored it, forbidding its inscription? Further, have the Companions and their followers written it down, or forsaken that job? What was the matter with them when embarking on narrating it? And was whatever reported identical with the very utterances of the Prophet – in wording and meaning – or contradictory to them? Also what be the factors intrigued into the hadith from the propensities of his (Prophet’s) enemies? Beside the effects befalling it from the purposes of his friends till spoiling it and making strange words to creep into it? Then at what time the parts narrated were registered? And was the tadwin (writing down) done through only one method without any modification with passage of ages and consecution of generations? Also what was the form and manner in which it recently came out in his books that people took for granted? And what was the stance of the Ummah ulama toward it? And the extent of their trust in or disagreement with it, after all that (distortion) which inflicted it and whatever affected it? Beside alike significant matters that should be known by every Muslim or researcher in Islam before considering the hadith and adopting 4. It is said: The science are of three kinds: One which has ripened but hasn't burnt, which is 'ilm al-nahw (grammar) and al-usul. The second is a science that has neither ripened nor burnt, which is 'ilm al-bayan (rhetoric), and exegesis. The third one is a science that has ripened and burnt which is 'ilm al-hadith and fiqh (jurisprudence). ( 22 ) what its words and meanings denote. But all this and whatever relevant to history of hadith, was altogether discarded by scholars and researchers, leaving them only as akhbar scattered in the books, and sayings concealed inside the asfar (history books), with no book undertaking their promulgation, or influential researcher undertaking the task of classifying them.5 Before indulging into the science of hadith, they had to get acquainted with its history, since the scholars made it compulsory for everyone to recognize the history of every science before embarking on studying it, exclaiming: The position of the history of every element and matter to it being exactly as that of sight to the body.6 Motives behind Compilation of this Book On launching to study, with intellect and thought, my religion, after learning it through dictation and imitation, emotionally, I opined that I should trace back its prime sources and correct chains (asanid). When reaching the hadith books adopted by the Sunnites I came across traditions, whose words and denotations could never be found in any way among his (S) wise utterances and rhetorical speech. That which astonished me even more was to find in the denotations of many traditions, things that neither reason would make sense of, nor proper knowledge would confirm, nor could be supported by an external sense or any authentic book.7 Such falsities I have found in a large number of the traditions that were filling exegesis and history books, and others! That which excited my wonder being: whenever reading a statement uttered by any of the Arab arrogants, I would tremble because of its rhetoric, with manificent feeling overwhelming me due to its strong wording. While reading most of the utterances ascribed to the Prophet, I would never feel the same joyance, nor that trembling. I was quite surprised how would such non sensical feeble speech devoid of rhetoric – could be uttered by the Prophet (S) while he being 5 .It is said a naqqab man, meaning an influential and potent man. 6. The book Manahij wa tajdid, by Amin al-Khuwalli, p. 88. 7. The only mutawatir book is verily the Qur'an, no book else. ( 23 ) the best of Arabic-speaking rhetoricians…or how would such feeble language be produced from him while being the wisest man inviting to guidance! The main reason behind my wonder was that I used to hear from men of religion – may God forgive them – that the traditions contained in the Sunnah books all being true and correct, with their words and denotations, and that all Muslims should absolutely admit them with whatever they contained!! When reading the hadith: “Whoever said lies against me deliberately, he should occupy his abode in fire”, I became so astonished of such restriction that could’ “never be issued by a messenger who was delegated with truth and commanded to do it, forbidding from lying (kidhb) and warning against it. Since it is quite obvious for all that to lie is to tell about something in a way contrary to its truth and reality, whether being produced by Muhammad or other than him. I kept on this belief till eagerness to realize the truth motivated me to seek and search for the origin and narration of the hadith, with its biography from the correct sources and authentic asanid, hoping to get acquainted with that which relieves me of the straitness in my bossom, eliminating my inside disturbance. This was due to the fact that this sensitive matter has never enjoyed an all inclusive compilation that could satisfy the researcher’s greed, and make the seeker’s quest to come true I persisted for a long time on investigation and seeking for truth, sparing no book that would be beneficial even with one word to help me reaching my sought quest, trying my best without giving up my efforts or submitting to the self calls to take rest and relieving it of this toilful process. I countered these calls with calling my self to patience, forbearance and persistence, till my trip was concluded with reaching amazing realities and extremely critical results! As I came to know that all hadith books were almost devoid of what they called sahih (correct) or even hasan (good) tradition, which was cited and recorded according to the very words and syntax of sentences uttered by the Prophet (S). I found out also that those traditions which they termed as sahih, had been no more than denotations as conceived by some narrators, with only very few words that |