The scholars efforts to purify and authenticate the Sunnah

[ditta]

As-salaamu'alaykum,

I will be updating this thread Insha'Allah (which will remain closed until complete), and I think it is an important read to understand the efforts of the scholars to purify the Sunnah. It complements the other two thread's that addressed the Sunnah as a legislative authority. Allah knows best but maybe this only touches the surface of this particular knowledge. May Allah bless us with beneficial knowledge and the means to it. Ameen.

Edit: Here is the PDF for the whole book,

https://ia801605.us.archive.org/19/...leInIslamicLegislationdr.MustafaAs-sibaee.pdf

The scholars war on fabricators and fabrications

Anyone who studies the stance taken by the scholars - from the time of the companions until the recording of the Sunnah became complete - in how they fought to quell the plots of the fabricators and in how the toiled and laboured to purify the Sunnah from false narrations can only conclude that they could hardly have done more to preserve the authentic Sunnah. The methods they used to criticise and scrutinise a hadith narration were most excellent and scholarly and thus they were able to discern between authentic and the weak. We can even positively say that our scholars - may Allah have mercy on them - were the first ones of all the nations to lay down precise scholarly rules for discerning between authentic and unauthentic historical narrations. Here are some of the steps they took to save the Sunnah from the plots of liars, steps that show how they were able to cleanse the Sunnah, removing any mud that tried to attach itself to it.

First the chain of the narration

After the Messenger of Allah died the companions took from one another without doubting in the other person's honesty and we have seen ample examples of this in previous chapters. Nor did the Tabi'oon hesitate to accept any hadith that they had had related from a companion of the Messenger of Allah. This sort of trust in society continued until the Discard (refers to the period in Islamic history immediately after the assassination of Uthman, the third of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, in which the Muslim Nation was split into factions and because plagued by internecine fighting) came to pass, and the miserable Jew, Abdullah Ibn Saba, proclaimed his evil claim, one based on extreme Shia ideas, that Ali had qualities of godhood or a deity. Generation after generation, schemes against the Sunnah began to grow and spread. At that early stage during the time of the discord scholars from the companions of the Tabi'oon began to scrutinise narrations, accepting only those narrations that contained known chains and narrators, narrators who were known for their trustworthiness and uprightness.

In the introduction of Saheeh Muslim, Imam Muslim narrated related that Ibn Seereen said,

"They would not ask for the chain (of narrators), but when the discord occurred, they said,

"Name to us your men"

They would see who was from the people of the Sunnah and take their hadith, and they would see who was from the people of innovation and not take their hadith"

Such scrutiny and investigation into the chains of narration's began in the period of the younger companions, those who lived on until after the discord occurred. Also in his introduction, Muslim related from Mujahid that Basheer al-'Adwee went to Ibn Abbas and began to relate hadith's, saying

"The Messenger of Allah said such and such…"

Ibn Abbas neither listened to his hadith nor looked at him, and Basheer said,

"O Ibn Abbas, why do I see you not listening to my hadith: I'm relating to you from the Messenger of Allah, yet you do not listen!"

Ibn Abbas answered,

"Whenever we used to hear a man say,

"The Messenger of Allah said"

- The attention of our eyes and ears would hasten to him when people started to… we began to take from people only that which we knew."

The Tabi'oon followed suit and began to demand from narrators the chains of narrations, and they tried to take as much as they could directly from the companions. Abu al-'Aliyah said,

"We used to hear narrations, the source of which were the companions, and we would not be satisfied until we rode to them and heard from them ourselves."

Ibn al-Mubarak said,

"The chain (of narrators) is part of the Religion. Were it not for the isnad (the chain), anyone who wished could say whatever he wanted."

 

[ditta]

Second, verifying the authenticity of hadith's

Scholars would verify the authenticity of narrations by consulting with companions, Tabi'oon and Imams of the Science of Hadith. Allah prolonged the lives of many eminent and knowledgeable companions who acted as reference books for the people. When fabrications first came into being, the people sought judgement with the companions, asking them about narrations they heard. To this end, many Tabi'oon and even many companions travelled to different lands seeking authentic hadith's, which were related by trustworthy companions. We have already mentioned the journey of Jabir ibn Abdullah to Syria and Palestine, and of Abu Ayyoob to Egypt in order to hear a single hadith.

Sa'eed ibn al-Musayyib once said,

"I used to travel nights and days, searching out a single hadith."

(Jami' al-Bayan al-'Ilm, 1/94)

On another occasion, Ash-Sha'bee related a hadith from the Prophet, and when he finished, he said to the man to whom he spoke,

"You have taken it for nothing; a man used to travel for something less than this to Madinah."

(Jami' al-Bayan al-'Ilm 1/92)

And Bishr ibn Abdullah al-Hadramee said,

"I used to travel from one city to another, seeking out a single hadith that I wanted to hear."

 

[ditta]

Third, Criticism of Narrators

By investigating the veracity of narrators, scholars contributed much to discerning the authentic narration from the fabricated one, or a strong narration from the weak one. They laboured long and hard, studying the lives and biographies of narrators, including what was apparent regarding them and what was hidden. And in taking upon themselves this monumental task, they did not fear the blame of anyone, nor did they hesitate to proclaim openly any defect found in narrators.

It was said to Yahya ibn Sa'eed al-Qattan,

"Do you not fear that that these whose narrations you have abandoned will be your opponents before Allah on the Day of Judgement?"

He said,

"For these to be my opponents is more beloved to me than the Messenger of Allah to be my opponent, saying to me,

"Why did you not expel lies from my hadith?'"

Scholars laid down rules that explained in detail the criteria for accepting the narrations of a narrator and for rejecting them. The following four groups constitute the most important categories of narrators whose narrations are not accepted:

1) The liars, who lied upon the Messenger of Allah. The scholars agree that narrations of hadith are not accepted from one who lied even once about the Prophet; they also agree that it is one of the greatest sins to lie about the Prophet. Yet they disagree whether the fabricator is a disbeliever. A group of scholars hold that fabricators are disbelievers. Other scholars say that the fabricators must be executed, though they disagree among themselves whether his repentance is accepted. Ahmed ibn Hanbal and Abu Bakr al-Humaydee, the Shaykh of Bukhari, say that the repentance of a fabricator is never accepted; an-Nawawi, on the other hand positively asserts that his repentance is accepted and that his narrations, like his testimonies, are from that time (i.e., the time of his repentance) onward accepted, and that his situation is similar to that of a disbeliever who accepts Islam. Abu al-Mudhaffir as-Sam'ani ruled that if someone lied regarding even one narration, all of his previous narrations must also be rejected.

2) The liars, those will lie in their general talk, even if they never lied about the Messenger of Allah. Scholars agree that someone is known to have lied even once, then his narrations are not accepted. Imam Malik enumerated four categories of people whose narrations are rejected:

"The man who is known for his foolishness, even if he narrates most among the people; the man who lies in the narrations of people, even if I do not accuse him of having lied about the Messenger of Allah; the man of desires, (one who puts his desires before or on an equal footing with Allah's Sharia), who invites others to his desires and prejudices; and the senile man, who does not know what it is he related, though he might have virtues in terms of his worship.

But if one repents for his lies and then becomes known for truthfulness and uprightness, then the majority of scholars hold that of his repentance and narrations and accepted. Abu Bakr as-Sairafee dissented, saying,

'When we reject the narration of anyone for a lie that he was exposed with, we never return to accepting his narrations, not even after an outward repentance.'"

3) The people of innovation and desire. Scholars agree that a narration is not accepted from an innovator who sinks into disbelief because of his innovation; the same ruling applies to the one who deems lying as being lawful, though he does not go into disbelief because of his innovation. But what about the innovator who does not regard lying as being lawful: are his narrations accepted? Or do we distinguish between the one who invites others to his innovations and the one who does not invite others to them? Al Hafidh ibn Katheer said,

"In this there is a dispute as of old and new, yet the majority hold that we make a distinction between the one who invites others and the one who does not (that is, we do not accept the narration of one who invites others to his innovation, while we do accept the narration of one who does not invite others to his innovation)."

Shafi'ee and Ibn Hibban related that there is a consensus that it is not permissible to rule by a narration that is related by an innovator. Ibn Hibban said,

"I know of no disagreement among them (the Imams) regarding this."

It appears, however, that Ibn Hibban's claim is ill founded for Bukhari related from Imran ibn Hattan, the Kharijee, who often praised Abdur Rahman ibn Muljam and who was one of the most famous propagators of the views of the Khawarij. Also, Shafi'ee said,

"I accept the testimony of the people who follow their desires, except for those who favoured Ibn al-Khattab of the Rafidah, for they permit false testimonies when doing so is in their favour."

(Ikhtisar Uloom al-Hadeeth, pg. 107)

In al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq, Abdul Qadir al-Baghdadi relates that Shafi'ee modified his view in the end, excluding the Mu'tazilah as he previously did the supporters of Ibn al-Khattab. It appears to me that scholars reject the narration of an innovator when his narration promoted his particular innovation, or if the narrator was from a group who deemed lies - even upon the Prophet - as being lawful when those lies serve to promote their desires and prejudices, and that is why scholars rejected the narrations of the Rafidah, while they accepted the narrations of certain Shi'ah who were known for truthfulness and trustworthiness. They would also accept narrations of an innovator if he or his group forbid lying; Imran ibn Hattan is one such narrator.

4) The Zanadiqah, the wicked ones, and the heedless ones who had no understanding of what it was that they were relating. Included in this category are all those who do not fulfil the requirements of precision in memory and conveyance, as well as those who are lacking in the qualities of uprightness and understanding. Al-Hafidh Ibn Katheer said,

"The accepted narrator is the trustworthy one, who is precise in what he relates. He is a sane Muslim who is of age, and who is free from defects in the form of wicked deeds and of those deeds that detract from one's honour (as outlined by scholars). He must be vigilant and not heedless. He must have memorised if he relates from his memory, and he must have understanding if he relates by meaning. And if he is faulty or defective in any of the previous conditions, his narration is rejected."

Scholars hesitate to accept the narrations of the following categories:

4.1. Those about whom it is disputed - were they upright and trustworthy or did they have in them some defect that affects the authenticity of their narrations?

4.2. Those who erred frequently in their narrations, often contradicting the narrations of the trustworthy Imams.

4.3. Those who forgot often.

4.4. Those who became confused about different narrations during the later stages of their lives.

4.5. Those whose memories were weak.

4.6. Those who were not discerning - they took from anyone, regardless of whether that person was trustworthy or weak.

 

[ditta]

Fourth, establishing general principles to categorise different hadith's, and to distinguish between its categories.

First, the Saheeh hadith

Definition of the Saheeh hadith (and in general, the saheeh narration, even if it is not from the Prophet):

It is a narration whose chain is connected, related by upright and precise narrators, from the beginning of the chain until it reaches the Messenger of Allah or its end, whether that end is a Companion or anyone else; it must not be shadh (i.e., when a trustworthy narrator contradicts the narration of one who is more trustworthy) and it must not contain a hidden defect that takes away from its authenticity.

Second, the Hasan narration.

Scholars have differed as to the correct definition of the hasan hadith. Shaykh ibn as-Salah said that because it falls between the authentic and the weak narration in the view of the researcher but not in itself, it is difficult to express its limits; it is difficult also because the matter is relative. Then Ibn as-Salah chose to describe the hasan hadith as follows:

"The hasan hadith is of two kinds: first, the hadith whose chain includes a man whose qualities are not established, though he is not heedless, not one who erred frequently, and not one who has been accused of lying; and the text of the hadith is related elsewhere in exactly the same wording or almost the same wording. Second, a hadith that contains a narrator who is famous for being honest and trustworthy, but he does not reach the level of saheeh narrators in his memorisation and perfection. And if such a narrator is the only one who relates a narration, that narration is not munkar, and the text should not be shadh nor should it be marred by hidden defect."

(Ikhtisar Uloom al-Hadeeth, pg. 28)

The first and second century hadith scholars did not name a category of hadith using the term hasan; that occurred afterwards, during the period of Ahmad and Bukhari, after which it became an accepted term.

Third, Da'eef (weak)

It's definition: it is a narration in which the qualities or requisites of the saheeh or hasan narration are not found. There are many kinds of da'eef narrations, and each is named according to the cause of weakness, whether it stems from the chain of the narration or the text itself. Here are some categories of weak hadith's:

1. Mursal: it is a narration that a Tabi'ee ascribes to the Prophet without mentioning the Companion that he took it from. The fuqaha (fiqh scholars) disagree as to whether the mursal hadith is a valid proof. The hadith scholars, however, agree among themselves that it is not a valid proof. In the introduction to his Saheeh, Imam Muslim said,

"In our basic view and the view of the scholars of narrations, the Mursal hadith is not a valid proof."

Al-Hafidh ibn as-Salah said,

"As to our mention of the invalidity of the Mursal hadith and our ruling of it being weak, the group of hadith retainers and critics of narrations agree with our view, a view they expressed in their various works."

They rejected the mursal narration because of their caution when it came to protecting hadith of the Prophet. For if an upright tabi'ee left out the mention of the Companion, all Companions are upright at any rate - and so the obvious question is, what takes away from the authenticity of such a narration? It was merely the caution and precision for which the scholars of this nation are so famous.

2. Munqati: it is narration in which one narrator - who is not a Companion - is missing, or if an obscure narrator is mentioned.

3. Mu'ddal: a narration whose chain is missing two narrators or more; for example, a narration that a third generation Muslim (the generation after the Tabi'oon) narrates directly from the Prophet without mentioning the tabi'ee and the Companion in the link.

4. Shadh: Shafi'ee defined this to mean a narration related by a reliable narrator, but which contradicts that which other people related. Some of the guardians of hadith give it a different definition (a narration that has one chain only, which is related either by a trustworthy or non-reliable narrator), but that of Shafi'ee is better, for there are many hadith's that are related only by a single trustworthy narrator. Muslim said,

"Az-Zuhri has 90 letters that he alone narrated."

5. Munkar: that which is related by only one narrator, who is neither upright nor precise; such a narration is rejected.

6. Al-Mudtarib: for the different narrations of the same hadith to differ, either in the text or the chain, without the possibility of preferring one narration to the others, simply because they are all equal in their authenticity and in the fact that they are related by trustworthy narrators. This kind of narration is weak, except if the difference is, for instance, in the name of a narrator, the name of his father, or the place he is from, and if the narrator is trustworthy; in these instances, the hadith is ruled to be authentic.

 

[ditta]

The signs that a narration is fabricated

Just as the scholars established rules for distinguishing among the Saheeh, Hasan, and Da'eef narrations, so too did they establish rules for detecting fabricated narrations; in fact, they mention in detail the signs through which a fabricated narration can be detected. Here we mention the signs that point to a narration as having been fabricated, and we divide those signs into two categories: signs in the chain and signs in the text.

The signs of fabrication in the chain.

They are many, the most important of which are the following:

1) A clear indication: the narrator is a known liar and that his narration is not related by anyone else who is trustworthy. Scholars have put much time and effort into learning the identities and histories of fabricators, following up on the liars among them so that none escaped their scrutiny.

2) That the narrator himself admitted to having fabricated hadith's. For example, Abu Ismah Nooh ibn Abee Maryam admitted to having fabricated about the virtues of different chapters of the Qur'an. Another example is Abdul-Kareem ibn Abee Auja, who admitted to having fabricated 4000 hadith's, in which he would make haraam that which in fact is halaal and vice versa.

3) That a narrator relates from a Shaykh and it is not established that the former ever met the latter, or it is established that the former was born after the death of the latter, or that the former never travelled to the land in which he claimed to have heard a hadith from the latter. For example, Ma'moon ibn Ahmad al-Harawee claim to have heard a hadith from Hisham ibn Ammar. Al-Hafidh ibn Hibban asked Ma'moon,

"When did you enter Syria and Palestine?"

He said,

"In the year 250 H."

Ibn Hibban said,

"Indeed, the Hisham that you relate from died in the year 245 H ."

Similarly, Abdullah ibn Ishaq al-Kirmanee claimed to be relating from Muhammad ibn Ya'qoob. It was said to the former,

"Muhammad died nine years before you were born."

In another narration, Muhammad ibn Hatim al-Kushee related from Abd ibn Humayd. Al-Hakim Abu Abdullah said,

"This Shaykh heard from Abd ibn Humayd thirteen years after he died."

Chronology is depended upon to a great extent in these kinds of narrations - this refers for the most part to dates of births, deaths, and journeys. Sufyan ath-Thawree said,

"When some narrators began to lie, we used dates against them."

4) One can at times conclude that a narration is fabricated when the situation and motives of a narrator are studied and exposed. Al-Hakim related that Saif ibn Umar at-Tameemi said,

"We were with Sa'd ibn Tareef, when his son came from his instructor, crying. Sa'd asked,

'What is the matter with you?'

He said,

'The teacher hit me.'

Sa'd said,

'I shall humble them today.'

Ikrimah related to me from Ibn Abbas a hadith that ends at the Prophet:

'The teachers of your children are the most evil among you, the least merciful to the orphan, and the harshest with the poor and weak.'"

 

[ditta]

The signs of fabrication in the actual text of a narration

There are many signs that point to fabrication in a narration, but the most important of them in the text of the narration are the following:

1) Stilted or awkward speech: the scholar who is familiar with the intricate details of the Arabic language knows when a given word or phrase is stiff or stilted and concludes that it is impossible to have emanated from one who is eloquent and well spoken - how then could such words have emanated from the most eloquent person to have ever spoken Arabic, Muhammad ? Al-Hafidh ibn Hajr pointed out that this sign is valid when the exact words of the Prophet are being quoted. Ibn Daqeeq al-'Eed said,

"Scholars often rule a narration to be fabricated based on this principle - based on the wording of the narration. Because of their extensive research in hadith literature, they have developed strong mental and spiritual faculties, through which they are able to differentiate between what the Prophet might have uttered and what the Prophet could not have uttered."

And Al-Bilqeenni said,

"If one serves under a master for a number of years, he knows what he loves and what he hates, so if a third party were to claim that the master hated something, while the servant knew for a fact that he loved that thing, he would, immediately upon hearing the claim, reject it as a lie."

2) An unacceptable meaning - this can occur in many ways, for example:

2.a) The hadith is contrary to incontrovertible facts, facts that people inherently accept, without the possibility of interpreting the hadith. For example, that Noah’s Ark circumambulated the Ka’bah seven times and then prayed two units at the station of Ibrahim.

2.b) The hadith goes against general principles in wisdom and manners; for instance,

“The Turks are unjust and the Arabs as well.”

2.c) The narration invites to lust or wrongdoing; for example,

“To look at a beautiful face makes one’s eyes shine.”

2.d) The hadith is contrary to that which one plainly sees or feels; for example,

“After the year 100 H, no child is born that Allah is in need of.”

2.e) The hadith is contrary to medical principles that are agreed upon, such as, “eggplant is a cure for every sickness.”

2.f) The hadith is contrary to what we know of Allah’s perfection and completeness; for example,

“Indeed, Allah created the horse, made it run, and it sweated, and from it. He created Himself.”

2.g) The hadith is contrary to undeniable historical fact or to Allah’s Sunnah (i.e., the general principles by which Allah makes things happen) in the creation and in man. For example, in one narration an Indian man is described to have lived for 600 years, and to have lived through the time of the Prophet.

2.h) The hadith consists of the absurd or silly, matters that the wise ones are protected from, for example,

“White chickens are beloved to me and beloved to my beloved, Jibreel.”

Likewise is the case for all that the sane and wise person instinctively rejects. Ibn al-Jawzee said,

“How beautiful is the saying of the one who said:

“As for any hadith you see that is contrary to sound minds, that is contrary to the basic principles (of the Sharia), and that is contrary to what has been (authentically) related - then know that it is fabricated.")

3) A meaning that is contrary to a clear verse of the Qur'an and cannot be interpreted; for example,

"With the exception of seven sons, no child of fornication enters Paradise.”

The implications of this narration are plainly contrary to the following verse:

...And no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another...

(Qur'an, 6: 164)

The narration is fabricated and is taken from the Torah; we know this because the ruling it imparts corresponds exactly to that of the Torah. The same can be said of a narration that is contrary in meaning to a well-known, clear mutawatir Sunnah; for example,

“If you narrates from me a hadith that corresponds to the truth, then take it, regardless of whether I actually said it or not.”

It goes against the meaning of a mutawatir hadith:

“Whoever lies about me on purpose, then let him take his seat in the Hellfire.”

This category also embraces those narrations that go against universal principles that are derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah; for instance,

“Whoever has a son and then names him Muhammad, he will also be his son in Paradise.”

Or,

“I make it binding upon myself that I should not make anyone enter the fire whose name is Muhammad or Ahmad .”

Both of the previous narrations contradict a known and established principle from the Qur’an and Sunnah: that being saved occurs because of good deeds, not because of names or titles. Also, if a narration is contrary in meaning to ijma (consensus), we know that it is fabricated; for instance,

“Whoever makes up for obligatory prayers on the last Friday of Ramadan, then that will compensate for every prayer he missed during his life, up until 70 years.”

This is contrary to the consensus of the scholars, which dictates that the missed prayer cannot be replaced by any other form of worship.

4) A narration that is at variance with known historical facts regarding the period of the Prophet; for example, that the Prophet levied the jizyah (a tax that is paid by non-Muslim’s (People of the book) who live in Muslim lands by agreement) upon the people of Khaybar and lifted from them all hardship and forced labour by the witness of Sa’d ibn Mu’adh and the written testimony of Mu’awiyah ibn Abee Sufyaan. Meanwhile, it is authentically established that the jizyah was neither known nor legislated during the year of Khaybar; rather, it’s ruling was revealed only after the year of Tabook, and Sa’d ibn Mu’adh died before that during the Battle of Khandaq, while Mu’awiyah accepted Islam during the period of the Makkah conquest. Therefore, authentically established historical facts refute the above-mentioned narration showing it to be a fabrication.

5) The hadith corresponds to the sect or school of thought of the narrator, who is fanatical in his adherence to that sect or school of thought. For example, if a Rafidee narrates a hadith about the virtues of the Prophet’s family or if a Murji’ (a member of the deviant Murji’ah sect) narrates a hadith about irja’ (a false belief that is the core tenant of the Murji’ah sect), one can be sure that the narration is fabricated. For example, Habbah ibn Juwayn said,

“I heard Ali say,

“Along with the Messenger of Allah, I worshipped Allah for five or seven years before anyone else from this nation worshipped Him.”

Ibn Hibban said,

“Habbah was extreme in his Shi’ah beliefs, and he was very weak in his narrations of hadith.”

6) The hadith narration should have had many narrators relating it due to the fact that the command it contains is very important or because many witnesses purportedly heard it. But the reality is that only one narrator related it. From this category, the people of the Sunnah include the hadith of Ghadeer Khum, ruling it to be a fabrication. In that narration, it is claimed that in front of all of the Companions - who purportedly bore witness to what was happening - the Prophet took the hand of Ali and said,

“This is my appointed one, my brother, and the Caliph after me, so listen to him and obey.”

Scholars say that the narrator clearly mentioned that the hadith took place in front of all of the Companions, which insinuates that all of the Companions hid what they knew from the Prophet’s words when they decided that Abu Bakr was most worthy of becoming Caliph, a claim that is as base as it is impossible. That the Rafidah were the only ones among the masses of the Muslim’s to have related this narration is proof enough of it being a lie. Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyah said,

“In this category is the narration that favours the caliphate of Ali, for we know it to be a lie for many reasons. Never mind that it is not mutawatir, it is not even related by anyone with an authentic chain, nor is it reported to have been related in a clandestine manner, despite the fact that the people of mutual council on the day of Saqeefah (when they agreed that Abu Bakr should be the Caliph), and when Umar died, when he appointed six to take counsel and choose the next Caliph. Then, even when Uthman died, the people differed regarding Ali, so it is obvious that if the narration is as the Rafidah claim it to be, many people should have related it on all of the aforesaid occasions...”

(Minhaaj us-Sunnah, 4/118)

Regarding the fabricated narration in question, Ibn Hazm said,

“We have never found the chain for this claimed narration, except one that contains an extremely weak narrator, who relates from someone unknown, who relates from another unknown, who uses the title Abu al-Hamra’ - and we do not know who in Creation he is.”

Ibn Abee al-Hadeed clarified that there are many similar narrations, and that whoever reflects and does justice to historical facts must conclude, without a doubt, that they are false and fabricated, for nothing even remotely close to the authentic is related to us in that regard, and what occurred after the Prophet’s death clearly shows that none of the Companions had any knowledge of the alleged command.

7) The hadith suggests a tremendously exaggerated reward or punishment for a small deed. Storytellers were best known for this kind of narration, for they used them to soften the hearts of their listeners and excite wonder among them. The following is an example of this category:

“Whoever prays such and such number of units for the Duha prayer receives the reward of seventy Prophets.”

Or, for example,

“Whoever says: none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, Allah creates for him, a bird that has 70,000 tongues, and each tongue speak 70,000 languages, and all of them (i.e., the tongues) are asking forgiveness for him.”

These are the most important principles that the scholars laid down in criticising hadith, and in distinguishing the authentic from the fabricated. From what is mentioned above, we see that they did not limit their efforts or even most of their efforts to criticising the chain rather than the text, a claim that - we shall discuss later on - is upheld by some of the Orientalists and their supporters. Indeed, scholars scrutinised equally the chain and the text of narrations; as you have just seen, they mentioned four signs of fabrication for the chain and seven for the text. And they did not stop there: they made allowance for the refined judgement of the expert, whose virtuosity in the field of hadith criticism - or whose intuition, if you will - often played a subtle yet important role when it came to scrutinising the authenticity of narrations. At times, because of their expertise in the Arabic language and because of their long study of the Prophet’s sayings and life, they would reject a hadith immediately upon hearing it. They would say, for example,

“There is darkness upon this hadith,”

- or,

“It’s text is dark.”

- or,

“The heart denies it,”

- or,

“The soul does not find peace in it.”

Ar-Rabee ibn Khuthaym,

“Among hadith’s, there is the hadith that has illumination of the day, by which you know it. And among hadith’s, there is the hadith that has the darkness of the night, by which you know it.”

And Ibn al-Jawzee said,

“The skin of the student of knowledge quivers upon hearing the munkar hadith, and most of the time, his heart has an aversion to it.”

 

[ditta]

The fruit of those labours

By the efforts of the scholars, which we have related to you in brief, the matter of the Sharia remained upright, for it was established upon the foundation of the Sunnah, the second of its legislative sources. The Muslim’s felt at ease with the hadith of the Prophet , from whom was swept away all quotations that he never actually articulated. The Saheeh, the Hasan, and the Da’eef were distinguished from one another, and Allah protected his Sharia from the tampering of the wrongdoers, the schemes of the schemers, and the plots of the Zanadiqah and all other enemies. The Muslim’s reaped the fruits of their vigilance and of their efforts; and the most prominent of those fruits are as follows:

First, the recording of the Sunnah

Until this point, we already know that, unlike the Quran, the Sunnah was not officially recorded during the period of the Messenger of Allah. The Sunnah was preserved in the breasts of the Prophet’s Companions, who verbally conveyed it to the Tabi’oon. Also we have already established that part of the Sunnah, but not the entire Sunnah, were recorded during the Prophet’s lifetime, and when that era of the Companions came to an end, only a small percentage of the Sunnah had actually been written down. So up until that time, the Sunnah was disseminated from the main part by word of mouth. Yes, Umar did contemplate recording the Sunnah, but he decided not to in the end. In al-Madkhal, Bayhaqi relates from Urwah ibn Zubayr that Umar ibn al-Khattab wished to record the Sunnah. He consulted the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, and they advised him to write it down. Umar continueD to seek guidance from Allah for an entire month... After which he said,

“Verily, I wanted to write down the Sunan, but I indeed remembered the people who came before you: they wrote books and applied themselves eagerly to those books while they left Allah’s Book (which had been revealed to their Messenger); and I – by Allah - indeed will never cover Allah’s book with anything else.”

The reason given by Umar corresponds exactly with the situation the Muslim’s were in, for the Qur’an was freshly revealed and entire nations were entering the fold of Islam; therefore they needed to concentrate their efforts on preserving, studying, and reciting the Qur’an, so that the source and foundation of their belief could remain safe from all distortion. This situation remained unchanged until the time of the Discord, and people began to spread lies about hadith’s. The Tabi’oon and those who came after them rose to the occasion, contributing tremendous efforts to identifying and then eradicating fabrications, efforts that we have previously discussed. From the earliest fruits of those efforts was the recording of the Sunnah - hence preserving it from distortion and from becoming lost.

Almost all narrations indicate that Umar ibn Abdul-Azeez was the first Tabi’ee who voiced the idea of compiling as well as recording the Sunnah. He commissioned Abu Bakr ibn Hazm – a governor and judge over Madinah - to execute that idea, saying to him,

“Look for the hadith’s of the Messenger of Allah and record them, for indeed, I fear the eradication of the Sunnah and departure of the scholars.”

He requested them to write down whatever hadith’s were known by Umrah ibn Abdur-Rahman al-Ansariyah (98 H) and Al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (106 H). It appears he did not give this monumental task to Ibn Hazm alone; rather, he sent the same request to all of the greater scholars of the time and all of the governors of different regions. Abu Na’eem related in Tareekh Asbahaan that Umar ibn Abdul-Azeez wrote to the inhabitants of all regions:

“Seek out the hadith of the Messenger of Allah and gather it.”

(In Taqyeed al-‘Ilm, Al-Khateeb’s narration says that he wrote that letter to the inhabitants of Madeenah).

And as such, Umar carried out the wish of his grandfather, Umar ibn al-Khattab, who had that wish for awhile and then decided otherwise for the reasons outlined earlier. It appears that Abu Bakr ibn Hazm wrote something from the Sunnah for Umar, yet the first to compile every Sunnah and narration that was in Madinah was Imam Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Shihab az-Zuhree (124 H), who was one of the most eminent scholars of the Sunnah during his era. In fact, Umar ibn Abdul-Azeez ordered his companions to go to Az-Zuhri, identifying him as the most knowledgeable person in the Sunnah alive at that time. Muslim mentioned that Zuhri related ninety hadith’s that no one else had related. Many Imams during his age openly said that had it not been for Zuhri, much of the Sunnah would have been lost, despite the presence of other great scholars such as Al-Hasan al-Basree and others like him during that age. It also seems that az-Zuhri’s recording of the Sunnah was not like the recording that was achieved at the hands of Bukhari, Muslim, and Ahmad as well as other compilers of the hadith. Rather, his collection consisted of an unorganised compilation of all the hadith’s he heard from the Companions; also, it is not sure that his collection consisted purely of the Sunnah, for it might also have contained sayings of the Companions and rulings of the Tabi’oon. That should not surprise us, though, because every new matter begins in such a way, until others come later on to perfect it. Az-Zuhri used to disseminate the written part of his collection to his students, so that they could relate them from him. And as such, Az-Zuhri became the first to lay the foundation, and recording the Sunnah in separate books. Prior to Az-Zuhri’s breakthrough, many of the Tabi’oon Scholars hated to have knowledge and narrations written down, and for different reasons; even Az-Zuhri, in his early days as a renowned scholar, disliked the writing down of knowledge, and he forbade others from doing so, but that was before Umar ibn Abdul-Azeez encouraged and exhorted him with sound reasoning to record the Sunnah.

After the period of Az-Zuhri, many scholars dedicated themselves to recording the Sunnah. Here are lists of cities and regions with the scholars who were the first to record the Sunnah in each of those respected areas:

In Makkah

- Ibn Jurayj (150 H)
- Ibn Is-haq (151 H)

In Madinah:

- Sa’eed ibn Abi ‘Aroobah (156 H)
- Ar-Rabee’ ibn Sabeeh (160 H)
- Imam Malik (179 H)

In Basra:

- Hammad ibn Salamah (167 H)

In Kufa:

- Sufyan ath-Thawree (161 H)

In Syria and Palestine:

- Abu ‘Amry al-‘Awza’ee (157 H)

In Wasit:

- Hasheem (173 H)

In Khorasan:

- Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak (181 H)

In Yemen:

- Ma’mar (154 H)

In Ar-Ray:

- Jareer ibn Abdul-Hameed (188 H)

Others to record in that era were Sufyan ibn Uyainah (198 H), Al-Laith ibn Sa’d (175 H), and Shu’bah ibn al-Hajaaj (160 H). Since they all lived in the same era, it is not known who was the first to record the Sunnah. In recording the Sunnah, they gathered the hadith’s of the Messenger of Allah, mixed with the sayings of the Companions and the rulings of the Tabi’oon, and, they did not organise chapters according to the subject matter. Al-Hafidh ibn Hajr said,

“... As for gathering hadith’s, along with other similar hadith’s in one chapter, Sha’bee was the first to achieve that, for it is related from him that he said,

‘This chapter on divorce is huge.’”

(Tawjeeh un-Nadhr, pg. 8)

Then came the third century, which was the most prosperous period for the Sunnah, one blessed with many Imams of Hadith as well as their compilations. Compilations at the beginning of this century were written according to the way of masaneed (sing.; musnad: a compilation (made by his student) of the hadiths related by an Imam), the gathering of all that is related from a specific Companion in one chapter, with multifarious subject matter. Among the first to author a book in this manner were, Abdullah ibn Moosa al-‘Abasee al-Koofee, Musaddad al-Basree, Asad ibn Moosa, and Na’eem ibn Hammad Khuza’ee. They were followed in suit by the great retainers of hadith, such as Imam Ahmad, who authored his famous Musnad. The same was achieved by Is-haq ibn Rahawai, Uthman ibn Abee Shaybah, and others. The way they compiled was to mention the hadith’s of the Prophet in their compilations without mentioning the sayings of the Companions or the rulings of the Tabi’oon; however, they would mix the authentic with the unauthentic, a method that entailed much hardship upon the student of hadith, for only the Imams and scholars of Hadith were able to distinguish the authentic narrations from other ones. So if one was not able to ascertain the authenticity of a hadith, he was forced to ask the Imams of hadith, and if he was not able to do that, the ruling of the hadith would remain unknown to him.

The state of affairs was what prompted the Imam of Hadith scholars and the shield of the Sunnah during his era, Muhammad ibn Isma’eel Bukhari (256 H), to tread a new path in compiling hadith’s and that was to limit himself to authentic (saheeh) hadith’s, without mentioning anything else. Hence he compiled his famous al-Jami’ as-Saheeh (otherwise known as Saheeh al-Bukhari). Following him in his way of compiling was his contemporary and student, Imam Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Qushairee (261 H), who authored his famous Saheeh. They paved the way for the student of knowledge, enabling him to reach the authentic without having to research or ask. Many scholars emulated them, and many books were compiled after them, the most important of which are as follows:

- Sunan Abee Dawood (275 H)
- An-Nasa’i (303 H)
- Jami’ at-Tirmidhi (279 H)
- Sunan ibn Majah (273 H)

These Imams gathered in their books the compilations of all previous Imams, for, as is the wont of hadith scholars, they related from those who preceded them. At the beginning of the fourth century, the compilers did not contribute anything new except for criticism and corrections or small additions to the earlier works. The task of scholars from this century was to sift through all that had been gleaned by those who preceded them. They depended heavily on the criticism of scholars from the earlier centuries. Another contribution they made was to gather in single books all of the different chains of narration for a single hadith. The most famous Imam in this era was Imam Sulayman ibn Ahmad at-Tabarani (360 H), who authored his three compendiums:

1) Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer, in which he mentioned hadiths, gathering all that each Companion related, one Companion at a time. He organised the names of the Companions of alphabetically. And this compilation of his consists of 20,505 hadith’s.

2) Al-Mu’jam al-Awsat, and

3) Al-Mu’jam al-Asghar. In these two compilations, he mentioned separately hadiths related by each Shaykh, and here too he organised his Shaykhs alphabetically.

Examples of other Imams and compilers during this era are Ad-Daraqtunee (380 H), who authored his famous Sunan; Ibn Hibban al-Bustee (354 H); Ibn Khuzaymah (311 H); and at-Tahawee (321 H),

And after the completion of this century, the recording, gathering, and analysing – in terms of authenticity - of the Sunnah was completed. Additional contributions from scholars of ensuing generations were limited to some additions to the authentic books. For example Abu Abdullah al-Hakim an-Nisabooree (405 H) added hadith’s that Bukhari and Muslim did not mention in their compilations, but that he felt to be authentic and in compliance with the conditions of both scholars. Some scholars – Adh-Dhahabee most noteworthy of them - approved of one category of his additions, while disagreeing with him about the other category.

 

[ditta]

Second, the Science of Mustalahul-Hadeeth (Hadith criticism)

(I have included the link to the PDF of the book so anyone can refer to it directly if you wish. I might finish this thread anyway although you can read what remains in the PDF).

Another fruit of the scholars' long labour to eradicate fabrications was the recording of rules and principles that govern the science of hadith; furthermore, hadiths were organized according to the categories we already discussed. The combination of the aforesaid rules and principles, through which scholars were able to distinguish the authentic from the weak, made up a new science that came to be known as Mustalahul-Hadeeth. The principles that made up this science, and which are used to ascertain the authenticity of historical narrations - are the most accurate and trustworthy known in history; indeed, our scholars are the first to have laid down those principles. In the early centuries of Islam, scholars of other fields followed the way of hadith scholars when authenticating historical reports, fields such as history, fiqh, tafseer, language, literature, and so on. In the early centuries, therefore, historical reports or narrations were accompanied by chains of narrators, each narrator being listed until the chain finally reached the one who was being quoted, and this was the case in all subjects. Even books written by scholars were passed down to their students, who passed them down to their students, and so on with each ensuing generation. We do not doubt, for example, that Saheeh al-Bukhari, which is widespread among the masses of the Muslims, was authored by Imam Bukhari because he related it with a connected chain, generation after generation. This feature is absent in the works of scholars from other nations - even absent from their holy books. A contemporary Christian author, Asad Rustum, a former history professor at the American University in Beirut, wrote a book about historical narrations. In his book, he depended on the principles of Hadith criticism, admitting that they consist of the best methods to authenticate historical reports and narrations.

He writes in chapter 6,

"The achievements of the scholars of hadith in this regard, over hundreds of years, are indeed worthy of wonder and respect. Here are some of the exact phrases we relate to you from their books to show you their scholarly precision and to acknowledge their contribution and favour to history."

He then begins to relate texts from Imam Malik, Imam Muslim - the author of as-Saheeh, Al-Ghazali, Al-Qadee Iyad and Abu Amru ibn as-Salah.

The science of Mustalahul-Hadeeth does the following:

- It categorizes hadiths into the saheeh, the hasan, and the da'eef, and then classifies each of these three categories into sub-categories.

- It clarifies the requisites of the narrator and the text.

- It details different kinds of defects in a narration.

- It mentions factors that cause a narration to be rejected.

- It mentions those extraneous matters that can help to strengthen a narration.

- It clarifies how a student of Hadith should listen to the hadith, how he should carry with him narrations, and how he should be precise.

- It discusses the manners of the Hadith scholar and the student of Hadith.

There are other issues as well that are studied in Hadith criticism, issues that were discussed in more and more detail as this science developed through its stages.

The first to author some of its topics was 'Ali ibn al-Madeeni, the Shaykh of Bukhari; during that era, Bukhari, Muslim, and Tirmidhi - in scattered pieces and works - also wrote on the subject. But the first to author a detailed study of Hadith criticism in one book was Abu Muhammad ar-Ramaharmizee (360 H), in his book, Al-Muhaddith al-Fasil Bayn ar-Rawee was-Sami'; however, he did not cover comprehensively all of the topics of this science. Then came Al-Hakim Abdullah an-Nisabooree (405 H), who wrote Ma 'rifah 'Uloom ul-Hadeeth; however, it was a book that was neither polished nor organized. Next came Abu Na'eem al-Asfahani (430 H), who did a sort of reproduction of Al-Hakim’s book. After them came Al-Khateeb Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (463 H), who wrote about the rules of narrating; he named his work ai-Kifayah; he wrote another book about the manners of narration, which he called al-Jami' li-Adab ash-Shaykh was-Sami'. In fact, he wrote a separate work for each of the different branches of knowledge that are related to hadith. Qadee Iyad (455 H) wrote a book called al-Ilma’, taking most of his material from the books of Al-Khateeb.

It was in the year 643 H that Ash-Shaykh al-Hafidh Taqee-ud-Deen Abu ‘Amru Uthman ibn as-Salah ash-Shahrzoori wrote his famous book, Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salah, which he dictated to his students in the Ashrafiyah School of Damascus. Though it is not firmly cohesive, it is comprehensive, covering all that is otherwise scattered in the books of earlier scholars - and that is why scholars took eagerly to it, devoting themselves to explaining it either in verse or prose form - such as the 1000 verse explanation of Al- 'Iraqee; the prose explanation of As-Sakhawee; At-Taqreeb, by An-Nawawi; and its explanation at-Tadreeb, by As-Suyootee. Imam Al-Hafidh ibn Katheer ad-Dimashqee (774 H) summarised it in his book Ikhtisar 'Uloom ul-Hadeeth.

(There is an excellent print of this book, with comments by Shaykh Ahmad Muhammad Shakir. The book along with the commentary is called al-Bahith al-Hadeeth).

Thereafter many books were written on Hadith criticism, the most popular of which are the following:

- Alfiyah, by Al-Hafidh al-‘Iraqee (806 H)

- Nukhbatul-Fikr fee Mustalahul-Athar, by Ibn Hajr

- Tawjeeh un-Nadhr, by Shaykh Tahir al-Jazai’ree

- Qawa’id at-Tahdeedh, by al-Qasimee ad-Dimashqee