|
main | traditionalists | sunnah | women | hijab | science | theft | education | language | free will | haram/halal | zina | compilation |
|
|
A history of the Hadith material
|
|
|
The word Hadith comes from the verb “haddatha”, which literally means “recount”. After the death of the Prophet, the Muslim world fell into such turmoil that many scholars of the time decided to record the sayings/deeds of the Prophet Muhammad to determine the “true path”. Wars between Ali and Muawia; wars between Ali and Aisha; murder attempts by the Kharijis on Ali and Muawia; murder of Ali; the mulukiat established by Muawia; the rebellion of the family of the Prophet and the murder of his grandsons Hassan and Hussain along with the rest of their family members by Muawia’s son Yazid; Yazid’s attack on Medina and the rapes of Muslim women as well as murder of 10000 people in Medina; exile of the Prophet’s close companions like Abu Darda, Bilal Habashi and Salman Farsi during the caliphate of Uthman. During this whole turmoil the politicians started looking to legitimize their actions through the sayings of the Prophet. Many sayings were invented by the people to please the different politicians. After this whole turmoil, when the dust finally settled, the Muslim Ummah was governed by the clan of banu Ummayya ,who during the pre-Islamic period were fierce rival of the clan of banu Hashim – the clan of the Prophet Muhammad. The same clan was also the biggest enemy of Islam during most of the prophet Muhammad’s ministry in Arabia. During the turmoil and afterward so many false ahadith (plural of hadith) were invented that one could justify any act by quoting a hadith. Muhammad Abu Zahra in his book “Malik” (Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-Arabi, n.d.) has dedicated a whole chapter, “The Increase in Lying Concerning the Prophet and the Schisms and Divisions in the Ranks of the Fuqaha” to study this phenomenon. He says on page 146 of his book The result of all this was that many lost interest in religion itself. Religion became weakened. There was such an increase in false Hadith attributed to the Prophet that those in charge among the believers took fright. They sought advice from the experts and tried to palliate this state of affairs by writing down the Hadith that were known certain and authentic It was around this time that Al-Bukhari was born in the year 194 of the hejira in Bukhara. Unlike the other people of his time Al-Bukhari’s methodology of collecting the hadith was more scientific in that not only did he collect the hadith in circulation, he also took the task of determining which hadith could be true and which hadith could be false. According to his own accounts he interviewed 1080 people and collected 600,000 hadith. His second task was to devise a methodology to determine which hadith were true. One of the tasks he performed was to compile a biography of the transmitters of hadith in his famous work “Al-Tarikh al-Kabir” (The Great History). After analyzing the hadith and the biographies of the transmitters (to the best of his ability) he retained only 7257 hadith (excluding the 4000 repetitions). This meant that according to Al-Bukhari’s research and methodology he came across 596, 725 false ahadith. This shows the dimension of the problem at hand – there were such a big number of false ahadith in circulation that of all the hadith he collected from his interviews 99.5% were false. Though Al-Bukhari’s methodology was very good, he still did not account for other mistakes that could have crept into the hadith. He was aware of the limitations of his methodology and ultimately he sought help in prayer and would simply hope that what he has selected as true was actually true. He said: “I wrote only after hearing the testimony of 1080 persons…and I entered no Hadith in the book before having carried out the ritual purification and prayed twice” (Bukhari, Sahih, vol 1 page 1; Asqalani, fath al-bari, vol 1, page 261). Actually Asqalani in his fath al-bari records how the hadith scholars used to be approached by the politicians to buy them. He records an incident where Bukhari had to leave the city of Bukhara because he was being approached by the Amir of the city to have a secret discussion with him regarding the hadith. It is recorded that Al-Bukhari refused to meet the Amir. This shows how common it was to invent hadith at that time. There were so many liars who tried to put into the mouth of the Prophet words that would benefit them that Abi Zahra tells us that Qadi Ayad undertook to set up a classification of them. According to him the first category is those who attribute to the Prophet remarks that he did not make. This category is divided into two groups – those who lie for material advantage and those who lie for ideological advantage The second category is those who did not fabricate the content of the hadith itself but simply falsified the chain of transmitters – “for example, they attach onto a weak hadith a very authentic isnad, composed of famous persons” (Abu Zahra – Malik, page 148). Qadi Ayad added a third category that is no less interesting: “There are those who simply lie. This individual claims to have heard remarks that in fact never reached his ears. He claims to have met people that he never met.” (Abu Zahra – Malik. Page 148). The works of Qadi Ayad and Abu Zahra show that even with Bukhari’s careful methodology he was not immune to including false hadith in his “Sahih” – for Bukhari had no way of knowing if a particular isnad was authentic or simply attached to a hadith to make it authentic. In addition to the above, two other important institutions of classical Islamic learning were corrupted during that time – genealogies and pre-Islamic Arabic poetry. Genealogies were very important in classification of isnad (chain of narrators) for they were used to determine if a particular person X could have heard the hadith from another person Y – the analogy of buying a genealogy in our times is to try and falsify one’s papers and identity. Ibn al-Kalbi, author of one of the rare books on the pre-Islamic religions and the subject of genealogy confessed to having sold genealogies himself. (ibn al-Kalbi: kitab al-asnam – Cairo Maktab Dar al-Kitab, 1924, page 18) The other blow to the Islamic learning was dealt when Taha Husayn wrote his historic book – “Fi al-adab al-jahili”. In this book he showed how poets were bought off by politicians to write things about Islam and then date it to the time of the Prophet. This work of Taha Husayn had gigantic implications. The biggest one being that the Islamic scholars had relied heavily on pre-Islamic Arabic of the time to interpret the meanings of the Qur’anic words. They reasoned that the Qur’anic words take meanings, which were prevalent at that time. Most of the modern Qur’anic vocabulary is interpreted by referring to the poetry found at that time. Taha Husayn tells us about the motive behind forged dates on poems of the time: The story tellers came to recite tales to crowds in provincial mosques. They recounted to them the old stories of the Arabs and the non-Arabs; they spoke to them of the prophets and used this material to slip in explications of the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the biography of the Prophet. Military expeditions and conquests were also touched on. These storytellers led the crowd through these subjects, carried along by imagination, knowing nothing of the limits imposed by scientific discipline and the rigor of authentication. The crowds, fascinated by the storytellers, gulped down all the stories they were told. The caliphs and princes, quickly realizing the political and religious importance of this new means of communication, encouraged and controlled it. They used and exploited it for their own purposes. (page 149-150) Taha Husayn sites several examples from classical Arabic sources to support his thesis. For example he talks about Al-Isbahani, a writer of the 4th century of the Hejira, who wrote about the case of a deal between a powerful man and a poet whom he asked to fabricate for 4000 dirhams a poem that he would date back to the time of the Prophet. The poem was intended to enhance the image of his clan, the Ummayads, the rival clan to the Prophet’s. The Ummayad said: “After writing your verses, say that you heard Ibn Thabit (the Prophet’s official poet) declaim them in the presence of the Prophet, may the Prayer of Allah and His peace be upon him.” The poet said: “I am too afraid of Allah to create lies concerning the Prophet. On the other hand if you wish, I can say that I heard Aisha recite the verses.” One of the most powerful example that Taha Husayn gives is about the presence of so many poetic passages in Ibn Hisham’s “Sira” of the Prophet – these poetic passages in his “biography of the Prophet” are often used to interpret the verses of the Qur’an as well as the ahadith. Taha Husayn reminds us that the original text of that biography was written by Ibn Ishaq, who himself had confessed and apologized that he does not know much poetry. So, asked Taha Husayn, where did those long poetic passages that are part of the text that we have in our hands come from? In short, Taha Husayn’s work advanced the theory that this poetry, key to our understanding of the sacred literature, especially the Qur’an, was a fabrication pure and simple. The following is a dialog that I had with another
poster on this forum. I think the response I made is also relevant to
the "History of Hadith" article and is therefore, included
here: Asalaam Alaikum, 1- What do you think prompted Al Bukhari or Muslim to write/authenticate the Sahih Hadeeth? All historical accounts of anything are primarily speculative. Since Bukhari and Muslim are not here to tell exactly what they had in mind, we cannot know for sure exactly the reasons and motives behind their work. What we can do is look at other pieces of evidence that help us speculate one way or another. For example, the fourth century commentator of Ahadeeth Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Hadi al-Sindi, states in his “Al-Sahih” of Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al_Ma’rifa, 1978, volume 1, page 1) the statement of Bukhari, where Bukhari stated that he wanted to include in his book only sahih hadith and wanted to leave out other hadith BESIDES the sahih hadith for fear of length. Commenting on this statement of Bukhari, Al-Sindi writes: “When his scientific method had attained its full development, he began to distinguish sahih hadith from the others. After having developed a very advanced knowledge of the various kinds of hadith, he mastered the techniques for uncovering their faults…” The statement of Bukhari and the respective comment of Al-Sindi shows that Bukhari was not just after creating “a book of sahih hadith”, but that he wanted to only exclude what he thought were faulty hadith. Al-Sindi further comments on this on page three of the book cited above: “Once his method of verification was perfected, Al-Bukhari retained as Sahih only 7257 Hadith, if the repetitions, which number 4000, are eliminated” On the other hand, one of the recent commentators on hadith, M.M. Azami seems to state that Al-Bukhari was only compiling “a book of sahih hadith” and if you did follow the discussion between Mubinshaikh and I, you would see that the implication was that there were many other sahih hadith in his collection that he did NOT include in his book. Now, neither Al-Sindi, nor Azami were there with Bukhari to find out his original intent. All they did was base their conclusion on speculations citing different evidence (though if you study their comments you will notice that at one stage both cite the same statement of Bukhari, but translate it differently). So, how do we make up our mind as to which speculation might be closer to the truth. Whatever side you are leaning towards, you need to ask the following questions before making up your mind: (a) If Bukhari wanted to compile just “a book of
sahih hadith”, why did he spend so much time and energy in
collecting an extra 99.5% ahadith that he did not want to include
in his book anyways? As you answer the above questions, you would come to the conclusion that he was NOT compiling “a collection of sahih hadith” and left out many sahih ahadith from his book. Rather, it suggests (as Al-Sindi comments) that he wanted to include sahih and exclude the faulty ones. According to him, of ahadith he collected, 99.5% were faulty and not sahih. Based on this and other supporting evidence, I lean towards the conclusion that there was an immense increase in lying about the hadith of the Prophet around that time. What other evidence do I have that suggests that? Let me show you a few sources from the books of ahadith that support this conclusion: 1. Fourth Century scholar of Hadith Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, writes in his book “Sharaf Ashab al-Hadith” (Beirut: Dar al-Basha'ir al-Islamiyya, 1988, page 91) that when Muawia became the Khalifah, he stood up in the masjid and said: O people, it is forbidden to speak about Hadith from the Prophet of Allah (S.W.A), except those Hadith which were mentioned during the Khilafa of Umar This statement of Muawia suggests that he was concerned about the false Hadith that were being narrated during his time. 2. Muwaia doesn’t seem to be the only one concerned about false Hadith, or even the validity of Hadith. The commentator of Hadith Shamsul Din al-Dhahabi, in his book “Tadhkira al-Huffaz” (Dar al-Fikr ed. 13, vol 1, pages 2-3), writes: Abu Bakr gathered the people during his Khilafa and said to them: ‘You relate Hadith from the Prophet of Allah and differ about it. The people after you will differ even more; therefore do not relate anything from the Prophet. If anyone asks you, say: “Between us there is the Book of Allah, so consider lawful what is lawful in it, and prohibit what is forbidden in it. This “Athar” dated related to Abu Bakr shows that the problem with lying about Hadith had started within the time period of his Khilafa (i.e. within two years of the death of the Prophet). Not only that, but it seems he was an advocate of following the Quran only for he realized what Hadith were doing during his time and what potential destructive force they held in the future. 3. We have a few more examples that suggest hat during the time of Umar’s Khilafa, the problem had reached astronomical proportions. The following incident is related to us from “Sunan Ibn Majah” (Cairo: Maktaba Mustafa al-Halabi, 1963, volume 1, page 12), “Sunnan al-Darimi” (Hadith Encyclopedia 2.0 software by AramediA, volume 1, #85) and Al-Dhahbi in “Tadhkira al-Huffaz” (volume 1, page 72): “Qarzia bin K’ab said: When Umar bin Khattab sent us to Iraq, he walked with us and said: “Do you know why I followed you?”, They said:“To honor us”. He said: “Besides that, you are going to the villagers . The Qur’an reverberates with them like the reverberation of a bee. Do not occupy them with Hadith. So make them busy and recite the Qur’an, and reduce the narration from the Prophet… Qarzia continued: ‘I never narrated a Hadith after Umar’s admonition’. When he arrived in Iraq, the people hastened to him asking about Hadith. Qarzia said to them: ‘Umar has prohibited me from that’ This athar indicates that Umar was also concerned about people narrating Hadith. We are further told by the third century Fiqh scholar ibn Sa’ad in his book “Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra” (Reprint, Beirut: Dar Sadir, n.d., chapter 5, # 140) and by Fourth Century scholar of Hadith Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in his book “Taqdim al-Ilm” (Cairo: Al-Matba’a al-Misirya, n.d., page 183) and by “Al-Dhahabi in his “Tadhkira al-Huffaz” (Dar al-Fikr ed. 13, vol 1, page 14) that Umar ibn al-Khattab commanded the three close companions of the Prophet - Abu Darda, Ibn Mas’ud and Abu Mas’ud al-Ansari to bring any written hadith that they might have compiled. They thought he wanted to organize them in a way so that there would be no differences between them. They brought their written Hadith and Umar confiscated them and BURNED THEM ALL IN THE FIRE. He then imprisoned these three well-known companions of the Prophet for narrating excessive hadith from the Prophet. This incident, recorded by three scholars of hadith show us that in the least, there was an enormous problem regarding the lies about the hadith of the Prophet during that time. It is one thing to warn someone, but it is another to put three well-known and well-respected companions of the Prophet in jail for narrating his hadith – this, after the Khalifa confiscating all their written collection's of hadith and burning them. 4. The problem however continued even after the death of Umar and during the time of Uthman. On page 91 of “Sharaf Ashab al-Hadith” al-Baghdadi narrates that Uthman said: “It is not permitted for anyone to narrate a hadith which was not heard during the times of Abu Bakr and Umar” It is interesting to see that how the narration of hadith was an issue during the times of all the Khulafa and it is interesting to note some of the comments they made regarding hadith. It is for this reason that Qadi Ayad, started classifying the liars and devoted a long list of works for this. Since, this article is getting longer now, I will skip some of the details (unless you come back and want me to give the exact details of all the remaining examples I now will quote). I feel that the above evidence should suffice as evidence about the problems with hadith even from its inception. Lying about hadith has been a big issue ever since its beginning. Aisha, the wife of the Porphet, is well known for accusing some of his companions for lying about his hadith. She accused Abu Hurairah of lying about Prophet’s hadith. Abu Hurairah’s rude answer to her has been also recorded by al-Bukhari. Aisha’s accusations were so strong that for a time, a big chunk of the Muslim scholars devoted much of their time in trying to resolve/answer some of her accusations. In the 8th century, an Iraqi fiqh/hadith scholar named Al-Zarkashi wrote a book called "Al-Ijabaa Lima Astadrakhathu Aisha Al-Sahabba".( Beirut: `Alam al-Kutub, 1989/1409) The whole book was dedicated to resolving Aisha’s accusations against other companions of the Prophet. In addition, we have the contradictory evidence from the Prophet himself in the following hadith: Hanbal: Vol 1, page 177: Muslim: Book 41, Number 7147: Abu Dawud: Book 25, Number 3640: The mere fact that hadith exist in written form is a contradiction to these three ahadith. It was not until the sixth century of Islam that some scholars realized this contradiction and started writing books to try and explain them away. I hope, the above evidence suggests at least that when Bukhari took the task of compiling the hadith, there was a big problem with people lying about hadith (in fact, the story of Umar burning the three copies of written hadith as stated earlier, indicates that there was a problem with written hadith also). In addition to all of the above, we also have evidence that poetry and isnad was being corrupted as well. The third century historian of Islam, Abu al-Faraj al-Isbahani, tells us in his book “Kitab al-aghani” (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-Arabi, 1963, volume 1, page 23) tells us that in his times, poets were being constantly approached by rich people to say something good about their families and clans and then date that back to the Prophet’s time. One of the many incidents he records how an Ummayad rich man approached a famous poet of his time. Here is the dialogue Isbahani records: The Umayyad promised 4000 dirhams to the poet and said: “After writing your verses, say that you heard Ibn Thabit (the Prophet’s official poet) declaim them in the presence of the Prophet, may the prayer of Allah and His peace be upon him”. The poet replied: “I am too afraid of Allah to create lies concerning the Prophet. On the other hand, if you wish, I can say that I heard A’isha recite the verses.” The eight century scholar on pre-Islamic sources Ibn al-Kalbi tells us in his book “Kitab al-asnam” (Cairo: Maktab Dar al-Kitab, 1924, page 18) that it was very common in those times to sell genealogies and isnad. He confesses that he himself sold a genealogy to Khalid Ibn Abdullah al-Qasri and was handsomely rewarded for that. The sum of all of the above is that not only there was lying about hadith, but there were lies created about genealogies and isnad and even the poetry (something that was a major part of the literary authenticity of that time) was forged to serve political and ideological purposes. You asked me: 2- Did the early Muslim writers as a group want to lie to Muslims and lead them away from the true path of Allah or the opposite? What evidence you have? was it some sort of conspiracy?
Most of my answer to part 1 applies to these two questions also. In addition, when you ask such a question, you need to ask counter questions regarding other religions also. For example, the concept of the Church was NOT taught by Jesus, but it appeared soon after him and was carried on for centuries as part and parcel of their deen. Does that mean that a Church is essential part of the Shariah? What people think is not relevant. What is important is what God defines as deen. Moses never taught anything regarding tradition. But soon after him appeared among the Jews the concepts of girmah and mishnah (similar to our concepts of hadith and sunnah) and the Talmud. If the people carried these ideas for centuries, does that make them part of Allah’s deen? You asked: 4- Have you known of any evidence in writings of muslims prior to Bukhari which spoke against Alhadeeth? I mean not the fikr of Mu'tazilah , Khawarij or shia ,nor the Ahadeeth you mentioned? like someone who wrote against Al Muwata.
Why do you want the evidence in a certain shape or form. You are well aware of the Mu’tazilla and the Khwarijis who were against hadith. Yes, traditionally many Muslims have called them “heretics”. However, that is purely subjective. I gave you examples of Unitarian Christians. They were also called “heretics” for criticizing the church and the concept of the divinity of Jesus. Since they were called heretics, and since they did not survive the assault of the majority, does that mean that they were wrong? An evidence is an evidence – it doesn’t have to be in a particular format of your liking. Shariah is defined within the Qur’an: “And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what between its hands of the Book and guarding it,, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a SHARIAH-a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed” (5:48) The Book of Allah is the shariah and NOT what people might think. Just like the message of Jesus was the shariah and not what people after him decided. You asked: “ 6- Do you think hadeeth just came to BE
without any religous reasons? Please refer to my answer in part 1. It is human nature since time began that we don’t want to let go of our heroes – but what happens, as time passes, that these hero-stories turn into legends and things start to be added to them – people thinking that they are simply twisting a bit here and a bit there. And there are also times when people do that to achieve political and ideological goals by manipulating these stories. Though the group that manipulates them is small, the blind followers are many. One only has to look at history and even at our times. The Popes in Europe moved masses by lying about the “atrocities” that he Muslims were allegedly committing in the holy land of Jerusalem. It was just a few people who twisted the truth – and the result? Millions of blind-followers marched to Jerusalem starting the centuries of the Crusaders. Even in our times. In India, the BJP started claiming that the masjid in Ayodhia was actually built upon the birthplace of their mythical god Rama. The result? 92 thousand Hindus (blind followers) marched on foot to Ayodhia in 1992 and destroyed the masjid with their bare hands. One only has to study the political and ideological turmoil that happened right after the death of the Prophet to see that things were manipulated (as shown in the evidence above) to serve different people. The masses did not do the manipulation – but they were blind followers. You asked: 7- You also call our Muhaditheen as -your gods - Did you prove any miss conduct in their sayings or doings that prompted you to dispise them? ,please the what ,where and how is necessary here to answer this question.” I will inshaAllah answer this question in more detail at a later time. At present this article has become too long and more will add to its length. The short answer to that is the ahadith that were included by the muhadatheen in their collections – ahadith that insult the Prophet and contradict the Qur’an (I will inshaAllah make a more detailed reply to this later with specific examples , inshaAllah) . This is reason enough for me to consider them as enemies of Allah and His Messenger – this has also been predicted in the Qur’an. You asked: 8- I have not seen any answer from you STEP BY STEP and AYA BY AYA how the quran describes the SALAAH , And I don't mean " maqam ibraheem aya " because that aya is not conclusive. We all believe the quraan is complete SO please show me how and what to read in salat again STEP BY STEP.And I will not accept "it is been practiced before islam and it is carried over to us " that is Speculation…” It is of no consequence to me what you will or will not accept. What I submit to is the following: <Wa laqad sarrafna_ lin na_si fi ha_dhal qur'a_ni min kulli mathalin, fa aba_ aktharun na_si illa_ kufu_ran> "And certainly We have repeated for humankind, in this Quran, every kind of example, but the majority of humankind do not consent to aught but denying." (17:89) “We have put forth for humans, in this Qur’an, every kind of example so that they may remember” (Qur’an 39:27). "And We have revealed the Book to you which has the clear explanation of everything <wa nazzalna_ 'alaikal kita_ba tibya_nal likulli shai'iw>, and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who submit." (16:89) “Shall I then seek a Ruler other than Allah? When He it is Who has revealed to you the Book (which is) distinctly detailed <al-kitaaba mufaSSalan>” (6:114) “And certainly We have brought them a Book, which We have detailed with knowledge <faSSalnaahu Ala Ilmin>, a guidance and mercy for a people who believe” (7:52) “A Book of which the verses are distinctly detailed <fuSSilat ayaatahu>, an Arabic Qur’an for people who know” (41:3) “Indeed We have made the verses detailed for a people who take reminder <qad faSSalnaa-l-’aayyaati li-qawmin yadhakkaruuna>” (6:126) “And this Qur’an is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is in his possession and a distinct elucidation of the book <tafSiila-l-kitaabi >, and there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the Worlds” (10:37) If Allah says it has details of everything we need for Guidance, then that is what it means. You can argue with Allah that you don’t find the details of salaat in the Qur’an. He gives the details that he thinks are necessary and not what you think is necessary. As far as salaat is concerned, He has given details in the Qur’an in the ayaat I have already quoted. He has also told us in the same Qur’an that salaat was being practiced by people before us – and not only that but that salaat is part and parcel of nature as every being performs salaat and that “everyone knows his salaat” Even if you don’t believe in the Qur’an as divine, but purely historical book, you have evidence that a historical book makes reference to people making salaat before the time of Muhammad. Purely historical sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls also indicate that salaat was being made several times by the people way before Muhammad’s time: "(Day
and Night I offer my praise)
|
|