Search from the Journals, Articles, and Headings
Advanced Search (Beta)
Home > Al-Basirah > Volume 7 Issue 1 of Al-Basirah

The Preservation and Authenticity of Ḥadīth As a Source of Sīrah: A Critique of Robert Spencer’S Views on Historicity of Muḥammad |
Al-Basirah
Al-Basirah

Article Info
Authors

Volume

7

Issue

1

Year

2018

ARI Id

1682060032214_251

Pages

01-14

Chapter URL

https://numl.edu.pk/journals/subjects/156085888716-Al-BASEERA%2013%20(Vol.7%20-%20Issue.%201)JUN-2018.pdf

Subjects

Historicity. Sīrah Qur’ān Ḥadīth Sunnah Sanad Fabrication Narrator

Asian Research Index Whatsapp Chanel
Asian Research Index Whatsapp Chanel

Join our Whatsapp Channel to get regular updates.

 

Introduction

Although Robert Spencer agrees that Muḥammad (ﷺ) has made a tremendous impact on history, yet, in his opinion, it does not furnish irrefragable evidence of the historicity of Muḥammad (ﷺ).([1])

 

He opines that despite its claims as a historical faith, Islam has not undergone significant historical criticism. Likewise, numerous claims are made about Muḥammad (ﷺ) but the veracity of such claims is open to historical scrutiny and analysis.([2]) He adds that the details about Muḥammad (ﷺ) contained in the Islamic sources are “fictional narratives” not “historical accounts”.([3])

 

The question of the real value and worth of ḥadīth as a source of reliable information has long been a subject of debate among Orientalists. Robert Spencer, like several other Orientalists, doubts the authenticity of ḥadīth and consequently raises serious questions about the historicity of Muḥammad (ﷺ). He says that after a lapse of fourteen centuries, it is utterly impossible to state with certitude

 

“what is authentic in the mass of information and what isn’t.”([4])

 

He believes:

 

“this makes the question of what historical Muḥammad actually said and did well nigh impossible”.([5])

 

He maintains that Muslims kept no record of the prophet’s (ﷺ) deeds and sayings for the first two centuries. In his words:

 

“if the canonical account of the origins of Islam is true, then the material in the ḥadīth about Muḥammad ’s words and deeds existed, and presumably circulated in Muslim communities, for nearly two centuries before it was finally sifted, judged for authenticity, collected and published.”

 

He concludes:

 

“yet there is no indication of this material’s presence.”([6])

 

Spencer, with reference to Nabia Abbott, contends that Omar (RA) had ordered to destroy ḥadīth if there were any.([7]) He puts the question that if Omar (RA) had exhorted the believers to destroy the ḥadīth collection then how come Muslims preserved ‘wheelbarrows’ of ḥadīth literature against the explicit command of the Leader of the believers.([8]) With reference to Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds, he contends that Sunnah of the prophet meant good behavior;

 

“In concrete term the Sunnah of the prophet meant nothing.”([9])

 

In other words, the Sunnah did not mean the words and deeds of the prophet (ﷺ).

 

==Emphasis on the Significance of Ḥadīth ==

 

Spencer argues that the significance of ḥadīth was accentuated much later. He writes that it was ʻAbd al-Malik and his successors who emphasized the role of Muḥammad ’s (ﷺ) words and deeds as “normative for Islamic faith and practice”. As a result, “The necessity for every Muslim to obey Muḥammad became a central and oft-repeated doctrine of the Qur'an”([10]) and the hunger for ḥadīth gained intensity and Muslim scholars began to traverse the world for the ḥadīth of the prophet (ﷺ) to resolve their disputed issues.([11])

 

Furthermore, Spencer writes that aḥādīth have been used as ‘political weapons’. During political turmoil, such weapons were ‘manufactured wholesale’.([12]) In Spencer’s view, many religious scholars

 

“fabricated aḥādīth in the heat of political and religious controversies that they hoped to settle with a decisive, albeit hitherto unknown, word from the prophet.”([13])

 

On another occasion Spencer adds, “The various Muslims factions produced a steady stream of ḥadīth defending their leaders or attacking their opponents.”([14]) He maintains that it was in the Abbasid Period that some Islamic authorities felt the need “to bring order out of this chaos”.([15])

 

“This great effort came to full fruition in the next century, with the appearance of the six most important Ḥadīth collections, none of which date from earlier than two centuries after Muḥammad ’s death”.([16])

 

The value of Isnād

As far as the Isnād of aḥādīth are concerned, Spencer argues that they were forged in exactly the same was as aḥādīth.([17]) The ḥadīth scholars attach great significance to Isnād in the matters of ḥadīth reliability and authenticity. Agreeing with this, Spencer adds,

 

“It didn’t matter if a ḥadīth was self-contradictory or absurd on its face; so long as its Isnād chain was clear of anomalies, and it did not contradict the Qur'an, the tradition had no obstacles to being accepted as reliable”.([18])

 

Spencer maintains that

 

“There are numerous indications that Isnāds were forged with the same alacrity with which matans-that is, the content of the aḥādīth -were invented.”([19])

 

Spencer sums up the whole discussion by remarking:

 

“Ultimately it is impossible to tell whether or not Muḥammad himself actually said or did any of what the traditional Islamic sources depicts him as saying or doing , or even if there was a Muḥammad at all.”.([20])

 

The following discussion will dwell on the above mentioned criticism of ḥadīth vis-à-vis steps taken for preservation of ḥadīth during various historical phases, the issue of coinage of ḥadīth for political and religious purposes, the use of Isnād, and the question of prohibition vis-à-vis writing of aḥādīth .

 

The Preservation of Ḥadīth as a source of Sīrah

The Sunnah of the prophet (ﷺ) is unanimously accepted by the Muslims as a source of law and perfect guidance in all walks of life. The Holy Qur’an has accentuated this theme in a number of verses. [ al-Qur’ān: 53: 3-4, 16:44, 4:59, 4:80, 59:7, 4:64, 4:65 ] In view of the significance of the ḥadīth of the prophet (ﷺ), a number of ways and measure were adopted to preserve them. The following lines shed light on them.

 

The companions of the prophets (ﷺ) used to learn the words of the prophet (ﷺ) by heart. The holy prophet (ﷺ) made special duʻā (prayer) for them. He said:

 

“May Allah endow vigor on that person who listens to my words and memorizes them and conveys them to others in precisely the same manner as he has heard them.” ([21])

 

The companions eagerly followed this ḥadīth and devoted their time and energies to the memorization of aḥādīth . A considerable number of the companions left their home and hearth and sought accommodation in the mosque in order to hear the words directly from the prophet (ﷺ). They are known as Aṣḥāb al-Ṣuffah.([22])

 

The Arabs possessed remarkably retentive memories. They used to commit to memorize not only the genealogical history of men and tribes, but they also used to commit pedigrees of their horses and camels to their memories. Hammād, an eminent narrator of Arabic poems, is known to have memorized three thousand and thirty eight poems.([23]) The Arabs considered it a blemish to write down their poem as it was, in their view, indicative of defective memory. Moreover, they thought that written texts could be manipulated and tampered with whereas memory steers clear of such tampering.([24])

 

The zest of the companions for memorization of aḥādīth was far greater than that of the Arabs for their poetry because the former deemed the guidance of the prophet (ﷺ) as the reliable source of eternal success. Therefore, they used their memory with meticulous care and caution for memorizing the blessed sayings of the prophet (ﷺ). Abū Hurayrah, the renowned companion of the Prophet (ﷺ) and transmitter of 5374 aḥādīth , says that he had divided his night into three parts: in one third of the night he performed paryers , in one third he took rest and in one third he memorized the aḥādīth of the prophet (ﷺ).([25])

 

It is relevant to add on this occasion that prophet (ﷺ) intentionally used to repeat his words three times so that they should get properly settled in the memories of the companions. A ḥadīth in Bukhari narrates:

 

“The Messenger of Allah’s speech was so clear that every listener could understand it easily.”([26])

 

The prophet (ﷺ) used to speak pretty slowly as a companion reports:

 

“When he spoke, one could count his words if he wished to.” ([27])

 

Moreover there used to be a particular repetition of words to facilitate memory. A report narrated in Tirmidhī reads:

 

“He used to repeat the words and sentences which he wanted to be understood very well three times.”([28])

 

There are scores of aḥādīth in which the prophet (ﷺ) has repeated the essential message. The following is cited as an example:

 

While addressing his companions, the prophet (ﷺ) said:

 

“Don’t you hear? Don’t you hear? Verily austerity and simplicity are a part of faith; verily austerity and simplicity are a part of faith”([29])

 

Mutual discussion was another way of preserving aḥādīth. The companions used to discuss what they learnt from the prophet (ﷺ). They did so in compliance with the teachings and instructions of the holy prophet (ﷺ). A few aḥādīth are quoted to this effect:

 

“The present should convey the message to the absent.” ([30])

 

“Convey to others (my message), even though if it be a single verse.”([31])

 

“May Allah bestow vigor on that person who listens my words and commits them to his memory and conveys them to others in precisely the same manner as he has heard them.”([32])

 

“Your hear my sayings and others will hear my sayings from you then others will hear from them.”([33])

 

“A Muslim cannot provide his brother a more useful benefit than giving him a good ḥadīth which had reached him.”([34])

 

These and similar other sayings of the prophet (ﷺ) whetted the eagerness and enthusiasm of the companions for acquiring and transmitting aḥādīth . The prophets (ﷺ) motivated and urged his devoted companions to hold discourse on aḥādīth in their gatherings. The word used by the prophet (ﷺ) is Tadarus which means teaching each other:

 

“Tadarus of knowledge for a period of time at night is better that an individual’s spending the whole night in worship.”([35])

 

Likewise, the prophet (ﷺ) strictly forbade his companion to conceal knowledge. The prophet (ﷺ) says:

 

“He who conceals beneficial knowledge, will come bridled with fire on Dooms Day.”([36])

 

Such threats and warnings made it appear to the companions as their indispensable obligation so whenever they met, they discussed the sayings of the prophet (ﷺ) instead of whiling away their times in vain talks. Such frequent debates and discussions played a vital role in the preservation of aḥādīth .

 

Practice also played an exceeding significant role in preserving aḥādīth . The sayings of the prophet (ﷺ) were not meant merely for philosophical debate, they guided the companions in the issues inseparably related to their practical life. The companions learnt to practice. Therefore, the Sunnah of the prophet (ﷺ) was not sheer verbal message, it was actually a living fashion, a living custom, a living and a living conduct seen and observed in every sphere of life. Thus practice preserved the prophetic ways of life. One day the prophet (ﷺ) was asked as to as to who is the real scholar, he replied he who acts upon what he knows.([37])

 

The Western critics of Ḥadīth generally believe that the aḥādīth were transmitted orally until Zuhrī wrote them down at the behest of ʻʻUmar b. ʻAdul ʻAzīz. Robert Spencer holds almost the same view. Some Western critics are of the view that Zuhrī’s collection of aḥādīth was also lost. This view is perfectly erroneous, betraying serious lack of knowledge about the early history of aḥādīth.

 

It is indisputably true that mere written recording of something does not guarantee its preservation. For instance, the existing Greek Bible contains approximately 200,000 minor and major variants which amply support the premise that mere written recording does not ensure authentic preservation. Quite contrary to the case of the Greek Bible, the holy Qur’an will remain perfectly safe even if all the Maṣāḥif are thoroughly exterminated, as millions of the Muslims have consigned to memory either parts or the whole of the holy Qur’an.

 

However, the prophet (ﷺ) is reported to have exhorted his companions to secure his sayings in written form. Some examples are given as follows:

 

The prophet (ﷺ) dictated rules about paying Zakat on certain kinds of property. These rules regarding the rates of Zakat and the assets on which it was compulsory to pay Zakat were recorded in a document.

 

ʻAbdullāh Ibn ʻUmar (RA) says the following words about this document known as “Kitāb-al-Ṣadaqah”:

 

“The prophet (ﷺ) dictated the book of Ṣadaqah and was yet to send it to the governors when he passed away. He had attached it to his sword. When he passed away, Abū Bakar acted according to it till he breathed his last. Then ʻUmar acted according to it till he passed away. It was stated in his book that one goat was leviable on five camels.” ([38])

 

The text of the aforesaid document can be found in Sunan Abī Dāwūd. While teaching the ḥadīth mentioned in this document, the famous ḥadīth scholar Imām Zuhrī used to tell his pupils,

 

“This is the text of the document dictated by Muḥammad (ﷺ) about the rules of Zakat. Its original manuscript is with the children of ʻUmar (RA). Salim, the grandson of ʻUmar (RA) had taught it to me. I had committed it to my memory. ʻUmar Ibn ʻAbdullāh had obtained a copy of it Salim and ʻAbdullāh , the grandson of ʻAbdullāh . I possess the same copy.”([39])

 

At the conquest of Najrān in the 10 A.H, ʻʻAmr Ibn Ḥazm was appointed by Muḥammad (ﷺ) as the governor of Yemen. For the guidance of Ibn Ḥazm, the prophet (ﷺ) dictated a comprehensive book to Ubayī Ibn Kaʻb who passed on the same to Ibn Ḥazm. The book consisted of general rules of Islamic Sharīʻah namely Tahārat (purification), Ṣalāt (prayers) Zakāt (annual charity tax), ʻUshar (tithe) , Ḥajj and ʻUmrah (holy pilgrimage), Jihād (battle), Diyyat (blood money), administration and education etc. ʻAmr Ibn Ḥazm used to with all issues with reference to this book. After his death, the book got into the possession of his grandson namely Abū Bakar. The same book was taught later by Imām Zuhrī. Certain passages from this book can be found the books of aḥādīth .([40]) Similarly, the prophet (ﷺ) appointed ʻAlā’ al-Ḥadhramī and Abū Ḥurayrah (RA) as his emissary to the Zoroastriens of Hajar and dictated certain rules regarding zakat and ushar.([41]) Likewise, the prophet (ﷺ) appointed Malik Ibn Murrah and Muʻādh ibn Jabal as the governors of Yemen and dictated some rules of Sharīʻah which they carried in written form.([42])

 

It is historically established that some devoted companions of the prophet (ﷺ) used to write down the sayings of the prophet (ﷺ) during his life.([43]) It goes without saying that the companions did not report equal number of aḥādīth. The number varied: some reported hundreds of aḥādīth whereas other hardly reported a Ḥadīth or two. The names of the narrators who have transmitted copious traditions are listed below.

 

In this regard, first comes Abū Ḥurayrah (RA) who, according to Baqī b. Makhlad, transmitted 5374 aḥādīth. He is reported to have possessed books of aḥādīth. In the succeeding generation, around nine students are known to have written aḥādīth from him. Next to Abū Hurayrah is Ibn ʻUmar (RA) who, according to Baqī b. Makhlad reported 2630 aḥādīth. There are unquestionable proofs that corroborate that fact he possessed a written collection of aḥādīth. Like Abū Hurayrah(RA), Ibn ʻUmar (RA) also had a large number of students out of whom at least eight wrote aḥādīth from him.([44])

 

Next to Ibn ʻUmar (RA) comes the name of Anas bin Mālik (RA) who worked as a faithful servant of the Muḥammad (ﷺ) for about ten years. He transmitted 2286 aḥādīth from the prophet (ﷺ). Sixteen students wrote aḥādīth from him, though some of them are not considered as reliable narrators by the Ḥadīth scholars. Another transmitter is ʻĀ’ishah (RA) who transmitted 2210 aḥādīth and at least three students have recorded aḥādīth from her in written form. In addition to them, Ibn ʻAbbas (RA) transmitted 1660 aḥādīth from the prophets (ﷺ). Nine of his pupils preserved his aḥādīth in written form. Similarly, Jābir bin ʻAbdullāh (RA) transmitted 1540 aḥādīth which were written from him by his fourteen students. Next to him comes the name of Abū Saʻīd Khuḍrī (RA) who transmitted 1170 aḥādīth. Although he was initially not in favor of writing down aḥādīth, yet according to the report of Khaīṭīb Baghdādī he himself wrote a few aḥādīth. Another narrator is Ibn Masʻūd (RA) who transmitted 748 aḥādīth. His collection of aḥādīth was bequeathed to his son.([45])

 

Next to him is ʻAbdullāh ibn ʻAmr b. Al-ʻĀṣ (RA) who transmitted about 700 aḥādīth. He would write down the aḥādīth during the life of the prophet (ﷺ) and his collection of aḥādīth was entitled as Al-Ṣaḥīfah Al-Ṣādiqah. At least seven of his students wrote aḥādīth from him.([46]) ʻUmar (R.A), the second caliph of Islam, transmitted 573 aḥādīth. He used to cite aḥādīth in his official letters and in this way a considerable number of aḥādīth got recorded in a written form. The fourth caliph, ʻAli (RA) also transmitted 536 aḥādīth . At least eight of his students preserved his reports in written form. Abū Mūsa al-Ashʻarī transmitted 860 aḥādīth: “Ibn ʻAbbas (RA) had some of his aḥādīth in written form. Similarly, Al- Barā Ibn ʻĀzib(RA) used to dictate aḥādīth and in this way he transmitted 305 aḥādīth. For brevity’s sake, a long list of transmitters is deliberately omitted and it is hoped that the given list will be enough to prove that most of the aḥādīth were written down by the companions of the prophet (ﷺ).([47])

 

The Aḥādīth against writing down the aḥādīth

Al-Khatīb Al-Baghdādī’s book Taqyīd al-ʻIlm offers an exhaustive treatment of this issue. The first part of the book deals with the aḥādīth that disapproves writing. The aḥādīth which prohibit writing down ḥadīth are transmitted by Zayd b. Thābit (RA) Abū Hurayrah(RA) and Abū Saʻīd Khuḍrī (RA). The ḥadīth reported by Abū Saʻīd Khuḍrī (RA) has two different versions: one of them is reported by ʻAbd-al-Rahmān b. Zayd who is unanimously regarded as weak by the ḥadīth authorities.([48]) According to Abū Nuʻaym and al-Ḥākim, ʻAbd-al-Rahām b. Zayd transmitted even false reports. According to Ibn Ḥibbān, he deserves to be abandoned. Therefore, we are justified in regarding this version of the ḥadīth as unacceptable and untrustworthy.

 

The same narrator, namely ʻAbd-al-Rahām bin Zayd if found in the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah, hence that report is equally unacceptable and untrustworthy.

 

The third ḥadīth is transmitted by Zayd bin Thābit (RA). His ḥadīth is mursal. The reporter from Zayd bin Thābit (RA) is Al-Muṭṭalib bin ʻAbdullāh who did not acquire it from Zayd bin Thābit(RA). It shows that there exists a missing link whose honesty is not known. This renders the ḥadīth unacceptable and unreliable. Besides, the ḥadīth of Zayd bin Thābit (RA) has two different versions: one version relates the approval of the writing of ḥadīth whereas the other version states that the prophet (ﷺ) abhorred it because the written texts consisted of personal views. Therefore, this ḥadīth cannot be quoted for proving the prohibition against writing down the aḥādīth of the prophet (ﷺ).In this connection, there is only one ṣaḥiḥ ḥadīth narrated by Abū Saʻīd Khuḍrī (RA) according to which the prophet (ﷺ) forbade his companions to write anything from him except Qur’an and also ordered them to erase whatever other than Qur’an was recorded from him.([49])

 

The status of this ḥadīth is disputed among scholars of ḥadīth . The eminent scholar of ḥadīth Imām Bukhari says that this is Abū Saʻīd Khuḍrī’s (RA) own statement which has been erroneously attributed to the prophet (ﷺ). He further maintains that it was actually prohibition against writing anything on the same sheet with the holy Qur’an. It should be noted that this command was given at the time of the revelation of the holy Qur’an; otherwise there is no cogent reason to prohibit the writing of aḥādīth .([50]) According to the holy Qur’an, the prophet (ﷺ) is a perfect role model for the entire humanity and being so his deeds and conduct should be emulated. During his life, his guidance was sought in different issues and matters .In order to guide his officials and governors, the prophet (ﷺ) sent hundreds of letters to different people and different regions.([51])

 

According to Muṣṭafā Aʻẓmī, the recent research conducted in the field of aḥādīth has convincingly proved that almost all the aḥādīth were preserved in written form during the life of the companions.([52])

 

The companions of the prophet (ﷺ) transferred their knowledge to a large numbers of their students. The students of the companions are known as Tābiʻīn. There is ample proof of their having recorded multitudes of aḥādīth . The first book of aḥādīth which is arranged under subjective headings is Al-bwāb by Imām Shaʻbī (b. 19 AH, 103 AH) Al-bwāb is divided into several chapters, each chapter containing aḥādīth related to various subjects such as Ṣalah, Zakah etc.([53]) It shows that a book containing systematically arranged aḥādīth appeared in the very first century. Likewise, Imām Hasan Al- Baṣrī (d.110 AH) wrote a book of aḥādīth which consisted of explanatory commentaries on various verses of the holy Qur’an. This book also appeared in the first century.([54])

 

In this era, the official compilation of aḥādīth was undertaken at the behest of the eminent caliph ʻUmar Ibn ʻAbdul ʻAzīz (99-101 AH). He dispatched an official letter to every governor of the Islamic state to convene a meeting of all the scholarly personalities amongst the prophet (ﷺ) of the companions of the prophets (ﷺ) in order to write down the aḥādīth found with them.([55])

 

In pursuit of the caliph’s command, the prominent scholars of the age compiled several books of aḥādīth. Ibn Shahab al-Zuhrī was one of the pioneers who undertook the sacred task of compilation of aḥādīth in this period. The books written during this were later merged in larger books of aḥādīth. With the appearance of large and comprehensive books, the small books written by Tābiʻīn vanished from the academic scene. However, some manuscripts were carefully preserved. Abū Hurayrah’s student, Hammam b. Munnabbih wrote aḥādīth from him. This collection of aḥādīth is known as ‘Al-Ṣaḥīfah Al-Ṣāḥīḥah’. All the aḥādīth of this collection found their way into the succeeding larger compilation of aḥādīth. The entire text of ‘Al-Ṣaḥīfah Al-Ṣāḥīḥah’ is found in Musnad-e-Imām Aḥmad.([56])

 

The original manuscript remained lost for a considerable period of time but in 1954 A.D two of them we found in the libraries of Damascus and Berlin. These manuscripts were edited and published by Dr. Ḥamīdullah. He compared the aḥādīth of this manuscript with those of Musnad of Imām Aḥmad and found no significant difference except for a few negligible differences of words which are generally found in two different manuscript of the same book. It substantiates our claim that the smaller books written by Tābiʻīn were made part of the larger books of aḥādīth compiled by later generations of the Muḥaddithīn.

 

In the first and second century, the Tābiʻīn compiled a large number of books. Following is the list of aḥādīth books compiled by the Tābiʻīn in the first century. This section should have formed the focus of this study.# Books of Khālid Ibn Maʻdān (d.104)

  1. Books of Abū Qilābah (d. 104)
  1. The Manuscript of Hammām Ibn Munabbih
  1. Books of Hasan al-Baṣrī (21-110)
  1. Books of Muḥammad Al-Bāqir ( 56-114)
  1. Books of Makʻḥūl from Syria
  1. Books of Ḥakam ibn ʻUtaybah
  1. Books of Bukayr Ibn ʻAbdullāh Ibn Al-Ashajj (d.177)
  1. Books of Qays Ibn Saʻd (d. 117)
  1. Books of Sulaymān Al-Yashkurī
  1. Al-Abwāb of Al-Shaʻbī
  1. Books of Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī
  1. Books of Abū ʻĀliyah
  1. Books of Saʻīd Ibn Jubayr (d. 95)
  1. Books of ʻUmar Ibn ʻAbdul ʻAzīz (61-101)
  1. Books of Mujāhid Ibn Jabr (d.103)
  1. Books of Rajā’ Ibn Ḥaywah (d.112)
  1. Books of Abū Bakr Ibn Muḥammad Ibn ʻAmr Ibn Haq
  1. Book of Bashir Ibn Nahik([57])

 

 

 

Aḥādīth Books in the Second Century

The salient feature of the books written in the second century is the subject wise arrangement of a large number of aḥādīth . However, some books are found similar to the compilations of the previous century in terms of their subject arrangement. As the list of such books is too long, only a few prominent specimens are cited below.# Book of ʻAbdul Malik ibn Abū Jurayj (d. 150)

  1. Muwattā of Malik Ibn Anas (93-179)
  1. Muwattā of Ibn Abi Zi’b (80-158)
  1. Maghāzī of Muḥammad Ibn Is’ḥāq (d151)
  1. Musnad of Rabīʻ Ibn Ṣabīh (d. 160)
  1. Book of Saʻīd Ibn Abi ʻArūbah(d.156)
  1. Book of Ḥammād Ibn Salamah (d.167)
  1. Jāmiʻ Sufyān al-Thaurī ( 97-161)
  1. Jāmiʻ Maʻmar Ibn Rāshid (95-153)
  1. Book of ʻAbdur Raḥmān Al-Awzāʻī (88-157)
  1. Kitāb al-Zuhd by ʻAbdullāh Ibn Mubārik (118-181)
  1. Book of Hushaim Ibn BashĪr (104-183)
  1. Book of Jarīr Ibn ʻAbdul Hamīd (110-188)
  1. Book of ʻAbdullāh Ibn Wahb (125-197)
  1. Book of Yaḥyā Ibn Abī Kathīr (d.129)
  1. Book of Muḥammd Ibn Suqah (d.135)
  1. Tafsir of Zāhid Ibn Aslam (d.136)
  1. Book of Mūsā Ibn ʻUqbah (d.141)
  1. Book of Ashʻath Ibn ʻAbdul Malik (d.142)
  1. Book of ʻAqīl Ibn Khālid (d.142)
  1. Book of Yaḥyā Ibn Saʻīd Anṣārī (d.143)
  1. Book of ʻAwf Ibn Abī Jamīlah (d.146)
  1. Book of Jaʻfar Ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (d.148)
  1. Book of Yūnus Ibn Yazīd ( d.152)
  1. Book of ʻAbdur Rahman Al-Masʻūdī (d.160)
  1. Books of Zāydah Ibn Qudāmah ( d.161)
  1. Books of Ibrāhīm al-Tahman (d.163)
  1. Books of Abū Hamzā al-Sukrī (d. 167)
  1. Al-Ghrā’ib by Shuʻbah Ibn Hajjāj (d. 160)
  1. Books of ʻAbdul Azīz Ibn ʻAbdullāh al- Mājishūn (d. 164)
  1. Books of ʻAbdullāh Ibn ʻAbdullāh Ibn Abi Uways ( d.169)
  1. Book of Sulaymān Ibn Bilāl (d.172)
  1. Books of ʻAbdullāh Ibn Abi Lahīʻah (d.147)
  1. Jāmiʻ Sufyān Ibn ʻUyaynah (d. 198)
  1. Kitāb Al-’Āthār by Imām Abū Hanīfah (d.150)
  1. Maghāzī by Muʻtamir Ibn Sulaymān (d.187)
  1. Muṣannaf of Wakīʻ Ibn Al-Jarraḥ (d.196)
  1. Muṣannaf of ʻAbd-ur-Razzāq Ibn Hammām (136-221)
  1. Musnad of Zayd Ibn ʻAlī (76-122)
  1. Books of Imām al-Shāfiʻī([58])

 

 

 

The list is by no means exhaustive and mention of several books has been deliberately eschewed for brevity’s sake. Notwithstanding, the list above is adequate to refute Spencer’s assumption that the compilation was not undertaken before third century. Now one can easily understand that recording of aḥādīth began in the very life of the prophet (ﷺ) and continued till large and systematic editions of aḥādīth appeared. According to M.M. Aʻzamī, the books did not perish nor were they destroyed, but they were absorbed and assimilated into the major works of the latter authors. After the appearance and emergence of encyclopedic works, scholars did not deem it necessary to keep the early booklets or books and therefore, such books slowly disappeared.([59])

 

The following are available today in printed form:# Al-Muwatta by Imām Mālik

  1. Kitāb Al-’Āthār by Imām Abū Hanīfah
  1. Muṣannaf of ʻAbd-ur-Razzāq Ibn Hammām
  1. Al-Sīrah by Muḥammad Ibn Is’ḥāq
  1. Kitāb al-Zuhd by ʻAbdullāh Ibn Mubārak
  1. Kitāb al-Zuhd by Wakīʻ Ibn Al-Jarraḥ
  1. Al-Musnad by Zayd Ibn ʻAli
  1. Sunan of Imām Shāfiʻī
  1. Siyar of Awuzāʻī
  1. Musnad of ʻAbdullāh Ibn Mubārak
  1. Musnad of Abū Dāwūd Ṭayālisī
  1. Al-Radd ʻalā Siyar al-Awuzāʻī by Imām Abū Yūsuf
  1. Al-Hujjah ʻalā Ahl al-Madīnah by Imām Muḥammad Ibn Hasan al-Shaybānī
  1. Kitab al- Umm by Imām Shāfiʻī
  1. Al-maghāzī by Waqidi

 

 

 

Fabrication of Ḥadīth : Causes and means of Elimination

There is no gainsaying the fact that things are forged only when their original precious real forms exist. If aḥādīth were not precious and important, no one would have fabricated any ḥadīth . It is true that different people with different ulterior motives and for obvious purposes fabricated a great number of aḥādīth . It is historically true that such fabrications came from both Muslims and non-Muslims. The fabricators can be divided into various categories, depending on their aims and objectives. Among those who falsely attributed words and statements to the prophet (ﷺ) were Zindīqs who lacked the audacity to fight Islam overtly. They forged aḥādīth under the guise of scholars. These fabricators include Muḥammad b. Saʻīd al-Shāmī and Mughīrah b. Saʻd Al-Kūfī: the former was crucified for his treachery. Besides such fabricators, there were some pious people who forged aḥādīth with positive intentions. Abū ʻUmar al-Marwazi narrates that Abū ʻIsmah used to quote aḥādīth about the virtues of the Qur’an surah by surah. When he was if ‘Ikrama’s students did not possess those aḥādīth then how did he get them from ‘Ikrama. It is to be observed here how the erudite scholars of aḥādīth used to make cross references to sieve the falsehood from genuine aḥādīth . Abū ʻIsmah replied that by so doing he wanted to turn the attention of the people to the study of the holy Qur’ān.([60])

 

We agree with Spencer that there were fabricators who forged aḥādīth for sectarian reasons. Similarly, we accede to his claim that there were some sycophant people who fabricated aḥādīth for the sake of the rulers. In addition, there were pious people who could not exert the required strenuous effort for learning aḥādīth with mathematical precision and consequently committed several mistakes in transmission of aḥādīth . It is pertinent to quote Yaḥyā b. Saʻīd al-Qattān, an illustrious second century scholar of ḥadīth :

 

“I have not seen more falsehood in anyone than those who are reputed as pious.”

 

It is an extremely persuasive proof that the scholars of ḥadīth were not in the least moved and impressed by the ostensible piety of narrators.

 

Scholars who devoted their intellectual energies to the study of aḥādīth and spent a great deal of their time with aḥādīth developed a special faculty to detect statements and words falsely attributed to the prophet (ﷺ). The example of such scholars is like that of an expert in Shakespearian studies who, by virtue of his profound acquaintance with Shakespeare’s style and diction, can fairly easily say what is Shakespeare’s and what isn’t. However, the scholar depended not merely on their special faculty but also laid down certain logical rules to confirm the genuineness or otherwise spuriousness of the statements attributed to the prophet (ﷺ). Ibn al-Qayyam has laid down the following general rules for the rejection of a ḥadīth .# Any ḥadīth containing a highly hyperbolic statement that the prophet (ﷺ) could not have made

  1. Any statement rejected by experiment
  1. Any statement that contradicted and established Sunnah
  1. Any statement which the prophet (ﷺ) was supposed to have made in the presence of multitude of companions but they supposedly concealed it.
  1. Any statement that does not resemble other statements of the prophet (ﷺ)
  1. Any statement that resembles, in its diction and content, the statements of medical practitioners and mystics.
  1. Any statement that is in conflict with the absolutely obvious meanings of the holy Qur’an.
  1. Any statement couched in an inelegant and inappropriate style.

 

 

 

In addition to these general rules, a foolproof system of Isnād is employed to detect fabricated material. The Isnād were casually used by the Arabs in pre-Islamic era. But the Arabs did not attach great importance to Isnād. They employed Isnād system for the transmission of their poetry.([61]) In terms of significance, Isnād system reached its pinnacle when it began to be used for the transmission of ḥadīth so much so that it was declared an integral part of religion([62])It was used to ‘extravagant limits’ for the purpose of documenting aḥādīth . Since the Sunnah of the prophet (ﷺ) is a valid source of law in Islam, it was absolutely natural to deal with ḥadīth documents with paramount care.([63]) With Isnād there came into existence a sophisticated science of ‘Ilm al-Jarḥ wa Taʻdīl’ for the analysis and evaluation of Isnād. There are numerable references in ḥadīth literature which prove that the narrators of aḥādīth were inquired about their sources. One such example is cited here.

 

Imām Ibn Salabah once came to the Messenger (ﷺ) and said,

 

“Muḥammad , your messenger came to inform us…..” This was the “rudimentary beginning” of the Isnād system. ([64])

 

In this connection, Ibn Sīrīn’ words are worth noting:

 

“They did not ask about Isnād but when civil war (Fitnah) erupted they demanded, ‘name your men’: “those who belonged to al-Sunnah, their aḥādīth were considered valid and those who were innovators their aḥādīth were rejected”.([65])

 

His account bears it out that Isnād were used even before Fitnah , however after the eruption of the civil war, care and caution in the use of Isnād was even more intensified.([66])

 

Scholars of ḥadīth possessed impeccably deep knowledge of nearly all transmitters, the number of aḥādīth they transmitted and the number of aḥādīth confirmed or otherwise not confirmed by other narrators in the Muslim world. The early scholars of ḥadīth compiled a large numbers of books on fabricated aḥādīth . According to M.M. Aʻzamī, Husayn b. Ibrāḥīm al-Jauzqānī (d.543) was the first scholar whose work dealt exclusively with spurious aḥādīth . For a layman’s study on the subject of fabricated aḥādīth , Shukānī’s book al-Fawā’id al-Majmūʻah Fi al-Aḥādīth is sufficient.

 

As mentioned earlier that traditions were fabricated for political reasons with the purpose to credit or discredit the concerned sects or parities, the scholars of ḥadīth , fully conscious of the menace of fabricated stuff, considered it indispensable to separate the genuine traditions from the forged ones. In this connection, the aforementioned book of Shukānī gives the following details about spurious traditions:

 

42 fabricated traditions about Muḥammad (ﷺ),

 

38 fabricated traditions about the first three caliphs (RA)

 

96 fabricated traditions about ʻAli and Fātimah (RA)

 

14 fabricated traditions about Muʻāwiyah (RA).([67])

 

It is pertinent to mention that in the same period when compilation of aḥādīth was in progress, an extremely sophisticated and systematic criticism was being developed by the scholars in which a variety of tests were designed to authenticate the accuracy and reliability of aḥādīth . It is incontestably true that the entire academic history of the world fails to cite parallel to such refined and systematic science of criticism.

 

In the light of these tests and principles, the aḥādīth were viewed and classified into hundreds of categories. The scope of the current study does not allow to provide exhaustive details of the different branches of the aḥādīth s sciences and the process of crediting or discrediting a ḥadīth , but by casting a cursory glance at thousands of books in this discipline persuades one to conclude that every possible measure to verify the correctness of aḥādīth has been taken by the scholars of ḥadīth .([68])

 

Conclusion

Contrary to what Spencer believes as “fictional narratives”, aḥādīth provide reliable “historical accounts” about the life of Muḥammad (ﷺ). Through the painstaking efforts of the Muslim scholars, the minute details of the life of prophet (ﷺ) have been meticulously preserved. Spencer claims that if the “historical-critical” method is applied to origins of Islam, little will be discovered to confirm the canonical account of the life of Muḥammad (ﷺ). After this critical-historical discourse on the preservation and authenticity of aḥādīth , we need to alter Spencer’s statement a little to harmonize it with the truth. Spencer writes:

 

“the unreliability of the Ḥadīth makes it impossible to know for certain anything about Muḥammad ”([69]),

 

But the fact remains that the reliability of the ḥadīth makes it possible to know for certain everything about Muḥammad(ﷺ).

References

  1. ____________________()Spencer, Robert. Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins(Washington: Delaware, 2014), 3
  2. ____________________()Ibid, 5.
  3. ____________________()Ibid, 7.
  4. ____________________()Spencer, Robert. The Truth about Muhammad; the Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion, (Washington DC: Regency Publishing, Inc, 2001), 25
  5. ____________________()Ibid.
  6. ____________________()Robert Spencer, Did Muhammad Exist?, 68.
  7. ____________________()Ibid, 69.
  8. ____________________()Robert Spencer, Did Muhammad Exist?
  9. ____________________()Ibid, 70.
  10. ____________________()Ibid.
  11. ____________________()Ibid, 72
  12. ____________________()Ibid.
  13. ____________________()Ibid, 76
  14. ____________________()Ibid.
  15. ____________________()Ibid.
  16. ____________________()Ibid, 78.
  17. ____________________()Robert Spencer, Did Muhammad Exist?.
  18. ____________________()Ibid, 77.
  19. ____________________()Ibid.
  20. ____________________()Ibid.
  21. ____________________()Muhammad bin ʻĪsā. Jāmiʻ al-Tirmidhī, Kitāb al-ʻIlm,( Beirut: Dār al-Gharb, 1998),4/325.
  22. ____________________()Shiblī Noʻmānī, Sīrt al-Nabī, (Maktabah Rahmāniyah), 1/178.
  23. ____________________()Ziriklī, Khayr al-Dīn,( al- ’Aʻlām), 2/131.
  24. ____________________()ʻAlī ibn al-Husayn al-Isfahānī, (Beirut: Dār al-ʻIlm li al-Malāyīn, 1980A.D), 611.
  25. ____________________()Al-Dārmī, Abū Muhammad ʻAbdullah bin.ʻAbd al-Rahmān. Sunan- al-Dāramī, Chapter Adab, (Saudia :Dārul Mughni, 2000 ), 1/322
  26. ____________________()Abu Dāwūd, Sulaymān bin Al-Ashʻath Sijastānī, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Chapter, Adab, (Beirut: Darul Kitab al-Arabi, 1986A.D), 4/246
  27. ____________________()Al-Bukhārī, Abu ʻAbdullah Muhammad bin Ismāʻīl.Sahih-Bukhāri, Kitāb al-ʻIlm (Beirut: Dār al-Najāt, 1422 AH), 1/21
  28. ____________________()Muhammad bin ʻĪsā al-Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ al-Tirmidhī, Chapter, Manaqib, 6/5.
  29. ____________________()Sunan Abi Dāwūd, Chapter, Adab, 4/246
  30. ____________________()Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al-ʻIlm, 1/21.
  31. ____________________()Ibid.
  32. ____________________()Jāmiʻ al-Tirmidhī, Bab al-ʻIlm, 6/23
  33. ____________________()Sunan Abi Dāwūd, 3/321
  34. ____________________()Ibn ʻAdbul Barr, Abu Umar Yūsuf bin ʻAbdullah, Jamiʻ-al-Bayān, (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʻIlmiyyah, 2000A.D), 233.
  35. ____________________()Ibid.
  36. ____________________()Ibid.
  37. ____________________()Jāmiʻ al-Tirmidhī, Kitāb al-ʻIlm, 2/93
  38. ____________________()Jāmiʻ al-Tirmidhī, Abwab al-Zakat, Bāb mā jā’a fi zakat al-ibil, 2/10
  39. ____________________()Sunan Abi Dāwūd, Ktab-al- Zakat.
  40. ____________________()Dr. Hamiīdullah, Al-wathā’iq al- Siyāsiyyah, 104-109
  41. ____________________()Ibn saʻd, Muhammad bin Saʻd, Al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā, (Beirut: Dar Ṣādir, 1968A.D), 1/263.
  42. ____________________()Ibid. 1/265.
  43. ____________________()’Aʻẓamī, M.M Studies in the Hadīth Methodology and Literature, (Riyaz: Saudi Arabia, 1977A.D), 25.
  44. ____________________()’Aʻẓamī, M.M, Studies in the Hadīth Methodology and Literature, 26.
  45. ____________________()Ibid.
  46. ____________________()Ibid, 27.
  47. ____________________()’Aʻẓamī, Studies in Early Hadīth Literarure, (Saudi Arabia:Riyaz 1977A.D), 34- 182
  48. ____________________()’Aʻẓamī, Studies in Hadīth, 28
  49. ____________________()Muslim bin al-Hajjāj al-Qushayrī, Al-Jāmiʻ al-Ṣaḥīḥ, al-Zuhd wa al-Raqā’iq, (Beirut: Dar al-Jīl, 1974A.D), 4/2272
  50. ____________________()’Aʻẓamī, Studies in Hadīth, 28
  51. ____________________()Mahmūd Ahmad Ghazi, Muḥādharāt Hadith, (Lahore: al-Faisal Nāshirān, 2010) , the letter-manuscript has been discovered recently and found in full accord with the text of the letter reported in Bukhari
  52. ____________________()’Aʻẓamī, Studies in Hadīth, 31
  53. ____________________()Jalāl-ud-Dīn Sayūṭi, Tadrīb al-Rāwī fi Syarh Taqrīb al-Nawawī.( Beirut: DārulJeil, 1980), 40
  54. ____________________()ʻAjjāj al-Khaṭīb, Al-Sunnah Qabl al-Tadwīn, 338.
  55. ____________________()Fatḥ al-Bārī, 1/74
  56. ____________________()Mahmud Ahmad Ghāzī, Muḥāḍrāt-e-Ḥadīth, (Lahore: al-Faysal Nashran, 2012), 278-283
  57. ____________________()Abū Abdullah Muhammad bin Ahmad, al-Dhahabī ,Tadhkira-tul-Huffāẓ, (Beirut: Dārul Kutub, 1998),1/188, Abul Faḍal Ahmad bin ʻAlī, Tahdhīb-ul-Tahdhīb,(India: Dā’iratul Maʻārif Tahzīb-ul-Tahzib), 2/104, Shaykh ibn Abi Ḥātim, Muqaddimah al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʻdīl, (Dā’iratul Maʻārif ʻUsmāniyyah, 1952 A.D),130, Abd-ur-Raḥmān bin Abī Bakar, Tadrīb-al-Rāwī, (Beirut: Dār-al-Tayyiba, 1988A.D),40.
  58. ____________________()Ibid
  59. ____________________()’Aʻẓamī, Studies in Hadīth, 67
  60. ____________________()’Aʻẓamī, Studies in Hadīth, 69.
  61. ____________________()Nāsir al-Asad, Maṣādir al-shiʻr al-Jāhiliyyah, (Beirut : DarulJeil,1980A.D), 255-267
  62. ____________________()Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Introduction, 14-16
  63. ____________________()’Aʻẓamī, Studies in Hadīth, 32
  64. ____________________()’Aʻẓamī, Studies in Hadīth, 33
  65. ____________________()Ibid.
  66. ____________________()Ibid.
  67. ____________________()Al-Fawā’id al-Majmūʻah, 320-408
  68. ____________________()Taqī ʻUthmānī, The Authority of Sunnah, (Pakistan: Idārāh al-Quran Karachi),119
  69. ____________________()Spencer, Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins, 87
Loading...
Issue Details
Id Article Title Authors Vol Info Year
Id Article Title Authors Vol Info Year
Similar Articles
Loading...
Similar Article Headings
Loading...
Similar Books
Loading...
Similar Chapters
Loading...
Similar Thesis
Loading...

Similar News

Loading...