Thesis Phd Islamic Studies

“An Educational Analysis of the Objections of Orientalists on Hadith, Investigational Analysis of (their) Contrast Opinions”

Submitted By: Supervised By: Muhammad Shahzad Prof. Dr. Abdul Rauf Zafar PhD. Islamic Studies Chairman Department of Roll No. 12 Islamic Studies, University of Sargodha

Session 2009-2013

Department of Islamic Studies The Islamia University of Bahawalpur

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this thesis of Ph.D. entitled “An Educational Analysis of the

Objections of Orientalists on Ḥadīth Literature, Investigational Analysis of (their)

Contrast Opinions” is the result of my individual research, and that it has not been submitted to any other university for any other degree.

Muhammad Shahzad PhD. (Islamic Studies) Roll No: 12 (Session 2009-2012) The Islamia University of Bahawalpur

III

APPROVAL OF THESIS FOR SUBMISSION

I hereby recommend the dissertation of PhD. accomplished under my supervision by Muhammad Shahzad Registration no: 44/IU.PhD/2009, Roll No: 12, entitled “An Educational Analysis of the Objections of Orientalists on Ḥadīth, Investigational Analysis of (their) Contrast Opinions” and has fulfilled the required rules and regulations for the achievement of PhD. degree in Islamic Studies in the session 2009-2012.

Supervisor:

Prof. Dr. Abdul Rauf Zafar Chairman Department of Islamic Studies University of Sargodha

Dedication

• To those historic & spiritual figures in the scholarship of Ḥadīth who spent the whole of their lives to preserve and defend the sacred aḥadīth and sunnahs of the Holy Prophet. • To my Father, Muhammad Ramzan, with a sense of deep grief because of missing him on 16th of March 2012, who always voted at house in favor of the continuation of my higher studies. May God enable me to plant one million plants to pay homage to him according to the sunnah of the Holy Prophet. • To my mother whose sensational love and support to me is always a part of my pleasant memories about whom I emotionally claim that no one is blessed with such a loving and caring mother as I am. • To my elder brother M. Riaz, so innocent and sincere by nature but always sharp and adventurous in his endless favors to me not only in my studies but in all the spheres of life also. • To all of those innovative thinkers who think out of the box and try to explore the horizons beyond the imaginations of the public in their surroundings.

Acknowledgments V

While researching this Doctoral thesis, I greatly benefited from a good number of institutions and persons without who’s help and suggestions I would never be able to complete this lengthy task. I should like to acknowledge them all with gratitude. First of all Sir Abdul Rauf Zafar deserves this acknowledgement who always co-operates not only with me but with all of his students. Whose kindness and supervision, sometimes really seems like a spiritual parentage. I am thankful to my great cousin, M. Safdar Jāved, Senior librarian at NUST Islamabad, whose guidance, encouragement and company has always been a divine blessing for me.

I am also grateful to Dr. Abdul Ghaffār who so generously handed over his PhD thesis to me even without prior conscience. I should not miss to thank Mr. Bilāl Aḥmad, Assistant professor at IIUI, who, in spite of his much indulgence in the research of his own doctoral thesis, generously spared a lot of time for me even without prior appointment to help me technically in the process of transliteration after which I found myself able to complete this task.

It must not be missed to acknowledge Dr. Ghulām Ḥusain Bābar, one of the prominent young scholars of Islamic Studies in Pakistan whose sincerity with himself as well as the nation has impressed me a lot. I cannot ignore the sympathy and selfless co-operation of my dear friend & colleague Mr. Rizwanulhaq, PhD scholar AIOU who’s simple and humble company has always been a source of comfort for me in difficult circumstances.

The whole staff of the Islamic Studies department, especially Sheikh Faisal Shahzād, should also be acknowledged who always co-operated with me from the approval of the topic to the submission of this thesis . Library staff of different Libraries like central Library IUB Bahāwalpūr, Central Library PU Lahore, Quid-e-A‘zam library Bagh-e- Jinnah Lahore, central library AIOU, Central library IIUI specially Chief Librarian Sher Noroz Khān also deserves the acknowledgement who first time reminded me of the transliteration and also offered to guide me in this regard, and the staff of Dr. Ḥamīdullah Library (IRI) Islamabad deserve the heartiest thanks because of their selfless support in this regard.

And finally it would morally be an injustice not to express my heartiest gratitude to my life partner Mrs. Razia Shahzad who after marriage not only proved herself a caring house wife but also sacrificed her in process MPhil degree just observing that I could not afford so much time to let her continue VI her studies at Lahore. She also helped me in composing the 99% of this thesis. Without her this help, I could never have completed it.

May the Almighty reward all of them for their generous and selfless co- operation with me. Ᾱmīn.

M. Shahzad Azad

Abstract

This doctoral thesis is an attempt to critically analyze the approaches and views of orientalists or “Ḥadīth Literature”. Central point has been to explore different misconceptions and misleading findings made by orientalists in the field of Ḥadīth Sciences. The key point of orientalists approaches is that they always worked on “Ḥadīth Literature” through the patron of secularism and biaroners. VII

This thesis has been divided into five chapters. The first chapter deals with the basic and historical concept of orientalism. The intellectual history and methodology of orientalists has been discussed thoroughly. The second chapter presents “Authority of Ḥadīth and Sunnah as a second Source of Islamic Law. The status and importance of Ḥadīth has been discussed in detail. The third chapter commences with the preservation, compilation and diffusion of Ḥadīth and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad ( S. A. W. ) . The different methods of the preservation and diffusion of Ḥadīth discussed in detail. The fourth chapter deals with the views and approaches adopted by the Orientalists about Ḥadīth Literature. In this chapter content criticism of Ḥadīth and the sources of confirmation have also been discussed.

The last chapter deals with the “Authority and Authenticity of Isnād system in Ḥadīth”. In this chapter Isnad system, Asma ur-Rijal, Ilm al Jarh wa ta‘dīl, mandatory qualities for the tadīl of a transmitter, classification of Aḥādīth, and Isnad system also discussed in detail. At the end concluding remarks and recommendations presented. As a conclusion, an effort has been made to present the true, authentic and authoritative picture of Ḥadīth Literature.

I hope this thesis will contribute something new to the Ḥadīth academia. This research will also open new avenues for the future researchers to further explore the core issue and give awareness to the Muslim Ummah about their due role in this regard.

Abbreviations

‘Ajjāj : al-Sunnah Qabl at-Tadwīn.

Annales : Ṭabarī, Annales (Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī).

Bayān al-‘Ilm : Ibn Abdul Barr, Jam‘I Bayān al-‘Ilm wa Faḍlihī.

Brown : Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought.

Bucaille : The Bible, the Qur’ān and Science,

Bukhārī : Muḥammad b. Isma‘īl, al-Jām‘i al-Șaḥīḥ.

Criticism : Șohaib Ḥasan, Criticism of Ḥadīth Among VIII

Muslims with Refrence to Ibn Māja.

Da‘īfah : Al-bānī, Nāsir al-Dīn, Silsilāt al-Aḥādīth al-Ḍa‘īfah

wa al-Mauḍū‘ah.

Dārmī : Al-dārmī al-Sunan.

Dāwūd : Abū Dāwūd, Sunan,

Decline : Edward Gibbon, The Decline and fall of

Roman Empire.

Early ╓adīth : M. M. A‘zamī, Studies in Early Ḥadīth Literature

Essays : Sir Syed, A Series of Essays on the Life of

Muḥammad.

Fāșil : al-Ramahurmuzī, al-Muhaddith al-Fāșil

Bayn al-Rāwī wa al-Wa‘ī.

Fath-ul-Bārī : Ibn Ḥajar , Fath al Bārī Sharḥ Șaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.

Guillaume : Alfred Guillaume,The Traditions of Islam.

Ḥadīth Literature: Zubayr Siddīqī, Ḥadīth Literature.

Ḥadīth Methodology: M. M. A‘ẓmī Studies in Ḥadīth Methodology and Literature.

Ḥanbal : Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad.

Ḥuffāẓ : al-Dhahbī, Tadhkirah-al-Ḥuffāẓ.

Ibn Mājah : Sunnan.

Image : Buaben, Image of the Prophet Muhammad in

the West.

Ișābah : al-Ișābah fī Tamyīz al-Șahābah.

Islamic Theology : Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology

and Law. IX

Islamic Law : Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law.

Isnād : J. Robson, The Isnād in Muslim Tradition.

Al-Jaūzī : Muadūāt al-Kubrā.

Juynboll : Muslim Tradition.

Kifāyah : al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah.

Mohammadanism : Margoliouth, The Early Development of

Mohammadanism.

Muir : William Muir, The Life of Mahomet.

Mustadrak : al-Ḥākim an-Nisabūrī, Mustadrak

Muwaṭṭā : Mālik b. Anas, Muwaṭṭa

Muslim : Muslim, al-Jām‘i al-Șaḥīḥ, ma‘ Sharḥ al-Noorī .

Origins : Origins of Mohammadan Jurisprudence.

On Schacht’s : On Schacht’s Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence

Shawkānī : Fawa’id al-Majmūa‘a.

Spiritual Background : Bravmann, The Spiritual Background of Early

Islam.

Tadrīb : Suyūtī, Tadrīb ur-Rāwī.

Tahdhir : Suyūtī, Tahdhir al-Khawāș, min Aḥādīth al-Qușșāș.

Tamyīz : Muslim.

Tanzīḥ : Tanzih al-Shariya al-Marfu’a, an al-Akhbār

al-Shaniya al-Mauḍu‘a.

Taqī, : Taqī‘ Uthmānī, The Authority of Sunnah.

Tārīkh al-Kabīr: Ibn Asākir, ‘Alī b al-Ḥasan, al-Tārīkh al-

Kabīr. X

Tirmidhī : Muḥammad b ‘Iesā, al-Jāmi‘.

Way of Life : Hitti, Islam a Way of Life.

Zad al-Ma‘ād : Ibn Qayyim, Zad al-Ma‘ād.

Preface

Ḥadīth literature is the richest source of early Islamic history that provides material for the legal, cultural and religious understandings of Islam. Ḥadīth has been considered the second source of Islamic Jurisprudence. Throughout the Islamic legal history since the life of the Holy Prophet. It was first challenged by C. Snauch Hurgronje and Goldziher in 1890 A.D. in the West with the publication of the latter’s work Muhammadanische Studien. They were followed by Joseph Schacht with his works “The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (1950)” and “An introduction to Islamic Law (1964)”. Afterwards their innovations encouraged and impressed many succeeding orientalists like, J. Robson, Guillaume Alfred, Juynboll, and Harald Motzki who challenged the authority and authenticity of Ḥadīth. The Orientalists put following Major allegations on the ḥadīth literature.

• Sunnah denotes the acts of ancient Arab community before Islam rather than the practice of the Holy Prophet. • Islamic Law did not exist during the greater part of the first century. XI

• The Holy Prophet’s authority was not legal but religious and political. • Traditions from the Holy Prophet cannot be certified as genuine or authentic. • The origin of Isnād system has been borrowed from pre Islamic Arabs and other non-Muslim communities. • Isnād system was used for the authentication of ḥadīth because Isnād have been invented by the traditionists to project their own statements into the mouth of the Holy Prophet.

The interesting point in the allegations mentioned above is that most of such charges have been refuted by some of other Orientalists themselves.

In these and many other charges against Islamic literature, the Orientalists have committed numberless mistakes in their research methodology. It is so because they often use unscientific and biased techniques which are not only startlingly at variance with Islamic classical views but also contradicting with the historical facts known to every reader of Islamic history.

Up to the present day, in the European community especially in the learned circles, the writings of Orientalists represent Islam and its studies. So, there is an intensive need of Muslim writers who can write on Islam in English language. Therefore, if the Muslims left the Western allegations on Islam and its teachings especially on ḥadīth untouched and unexamined, not only the early legal history of Islam but its early formative literary history as a whole would be demolished. And, the scholarly credibility and integrity of all the Muslim figures of the early centuries would be in question.

A good number of Muslim scholars have tried to make this deficiency up through their remarkable works. Details of aforesaid scholars and their works will be enlisted in the first chapter of this work. Only few are mentioned below as their works concerned, directly or indirectly, with this topic of ḥadīth literature.

Mustafa Sibaī, Zubayr Siddiqi, and M. M. A‘zamī tried their best to defend the ḥadīth literature against the anti-ḥadīth Western allegations.

Keeping in mind the Western threat of misrepresenting the Islamic heritage, this thesis has been written as a humble effort for the defense of ḥadīth. XII

This study is organized into five chapters. The first chapter of the study deals with the Orientalism, its historical background, objectives, history and the works of prominent Orientalists on ḥadīth literature. Second chapter discusses the introduction and the authority of ḥadīth and Sunnah. Third chapter reveals the details of the compilation and the preservation of ḥadīth. The second last chapter is about the history and validityof applied methods of content criticism of ḥadīth texts. Origin, development, importance, and the status of isnād system in ḥadīh have been compiled in the final chapter.

Because each debate in the last four chapters has been produced in reply to the charges of the Orientalists, therefore the allegations and arbitrary assumptions of the Orientalists have also been dealt with. For this purpose, following research based parameters have been adopted.

a. Contrast opinions of the Orientalists on the concerned topic reveal the reality that there is something wrong in some of the orientalists’opinions.

b. Positive opinions of some impartial Orientalists who favor the Islamic viewpoint and deny the other Orientalists’ opinions on the concerned topic have been bound. c. To answer the Western world, the true picture of the Muslim point of view on the each concerned topic is equipped with the history, solid methodology, logic and sincerity, is port rated in this thesis.

Finally this research project has been summed up with the presentation of some suggestions and recommendations for Muslim readers and scholars to deal with the literary heritage of Islam through reasonable and unbiased research to overcome the fallacies and shortcomings in the research works of the orientalists. 1

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments v

Abstract vii

Abriviations viii

Preface xi

Chapter I

Introduction to Orientalism.

1.1 . Basic Concept of Orientalism. 6

1.2 . Historical Background of Orientalism. 7

1.3 . Christian Attempts to Deal with the Challenge of 11 Islam.

1.4 . Intellectual History of the Orientalism. 13

1.5 . Introduction to Orientalists’ Study of Ḥadīth. 30

1.6 . Muslim Scholars’ Role in Reply to the Orientalism. 45

Chapter II

Authority of Hadīth& Sunnah as Second Source of Islamic Law

2.1. Introduction to Hadīth & Sunnah. 55 2.1.1.1. Ṣaḥāba’s Use of the Word Ḥadīth and the Refutation of Goldziher’s View Point. 59 2.1.2. Meaning and Use of the Word Sunnah. 60 2.1.2.3. The Early Versus Later Concept of The Term 63 Sunnah, and the Orientalists.

2.1.3. The Authority of Living Sunnah Versus that of 75 Prophetic Sunnah and the Orientalists. 2.2. The Authority of Ḥadith and Sunnah as Second 83 Source of Islamic Law and the Orientalists.

Chapter III

The Preservation, Compilation and the Diffusion of Ḥadīth And Sunnah

3.1. The Earliest Methods of the Preservation of Ḥadīth. 111

3.2. Warning and Advice of the Holy Prophet in the Transmission of 133 Ḥadīth.

3.2.1. Ṣaḥāba’s Precautionary Attitude Towards the Aḥadīth. 134

3.3. Ṣaḥīfās Written by The Companions During and after the Life of 137 the Holy Prophet.

3.4. Compilations of Ḥadīth Written in 1st Century of Hijrah. 139

3.5. Compilations of Ḥadīth in the Second Century A.H. 139

3.6. Methods of Carrying and Imparting Aḥādīth after the 140 Companions.

3.7. Forgery in Ḥadīth and Muslim Attempts to Deal with It. 141

3.7.2. Causes of Fabrication and Different Classes of Forgers. 143

3.7.3. Is Islamic Literature Borrowed from Pre-Islamic Religions and 149 Customs?

3.7.4. General Explanatory Reply to the Objections of Orientalists. 156

3.8. Historical Authentiy of Ḥadīth and the Orientalists. 161

Chapter IV

THE SCIENCE OF THE CRITICISM OF ḤADĪTH

CONTENT CRITICISM OF ḤADĪTH AND THE ORIENTALISTS.

4.1.Orientalists’ Views on the Content Criticism of Ḥadīth 174

4.2.Hitory of Ḥadith Criticism; Muslim Steps for the Defence 176 of Ḥadīth Literature.

4.2.1.Content Criticism of Ḥadīth. 177

4.2.2. Criticism of Isnaād in Ḥadith Literature. 177

4.2.1.2.Content Criticism of Ḥadīth in the Age of the Holy 179 Prophet.

4.2.1.3.Content Criticism of Ḥadīth in the Period of the 185 Companions.

4.2.1.4. The Period after the Companions. 191

4.2.1.5. Rational Criticism of Ḥadīth Texts. 195

4.2.1.6. General Principles for the Criticism of the Text of Ḥadīth. 200

Chapter V

THE SCIENCE OF THE CRITICISM OF ḤADĪTH

AUTHORITY AND AUTHENTICITY OF ISNĀD SYSTEM IN ḤADĪTH LITERATURE

5.1. Isnād System (Chain of Transmitters). 206

5.2. Origins of Isnād System and the Orientalists. 211

5.3. Status of Isnād in Muslim Tradition. 216

5.4. Beginning and Development of Isnād System in 223 Ḥadīth Literature.

Conclusion. 238

Recommendations. 243

Indexes. 244

Bibliography 253

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO ORIENTALISM

1.1 Basic Concept of Orientalism 1.1.1 Literal Meanings of Orientalism. The word ‘orientalism’ is derived from the word ‘orient’ that means the East. Oriental means ‘Eastern’ and orientalism means knowing or investigating the East. it can also be defined as an antonym of Occidentalism meaning ‘knowing the west’ which is derived from occident or occidental that mean the west or western.

1.1.2 Terminological Meanings.

The orientalism, if taken as a term’ means an organization of the western people to know or investigate the languages, civilizations and cultures, arts and sciences, religions, their teachings and the resources of various countries of the East. And any person who does any of the above mentioned functions is called an orientalist. According to the oxford English dictionary, the word orientalist is defined as following: “A person who studies the languages, arts, etc of oriental countries”1 Edward Said defines the orientalism, its areas of study and the word “orientalist” in a very comprehensive way. He says; “Taking the late eighteenth century as a very roughly defined starting point, Orientalism can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the orient, dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it. In short, Orientalism as a western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.”2 According to him Orientalism is the function of an Orientalist. He expresses his remarks as under: “Anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches the orient and this applies whether the person is an anthropologist, sociologist, historian, or philologist either in its specific or its general aspects, is an orientalist, and what he or she does is Orientalism.”3 Orientalism, as a whole, covers a huge area of research and investigation including religions, languages, cultures and civilizations. It is to know which country or nation has precious resources, if occupied, useful for the West. Of all these political and social departments of orientalism, the department to know, about Islam, the Muslims and to occupy their countries and to weaken their religious and social basis is most important for the orientalists as well as for us to defend our geographical and theological boundaries. Keeping in view this function of orientalism,

most of the Muslim scholars define the orientalism and the orientalist in the following sense. Orientalism is the organization of Western people that was established for research about Islam, its civilization, culture, languages of its people and about the resources of its countries is called orientalism. And, the person who participates in these activities either collectively or individually is called the ‘orientalist’. In the coming pages, we shall discuss the orientalism by keeping in mind its very concept and function as mentioned earlier.

1.2 Historical Background of Orientalism.

The existence of truth and wrong and the clash between them is an undoubted reality of the world. Therefore, every Prophet of the Almighty Allah and His followers had to fight with the powers of bad evil and wrong doers during the time when they were busy in preaching the truth for its dominance in the world. The same practice was repeated when the last Prophet Muhammad started the same mission of the previous Prophets. Makkan pagans, the Jews,and the Christians revised the history of the enmity of wrong with right. This enmity and battle continued in different shapes. Sometimes, the enemies expressed their opposition in militancy, sometimes in hypocrisy and sometimes in the shape of rationalism. Commonly these clashes continued since the early life of the Holy Prophet. But the shape of the well planned enmity with which our present research is related, appeared when the domination of Islam alarmed the Christian world to arise against it. Here we intend to unveil the real picture of this western expedition dealing with the challenges of Islam to the Christian world. This expedition is known to us as orientalism. Let’s dive into the depths of its inner motives and functions to show its real picture to the world of humanity.

1.2.1 The Rise of Islam and its impacts on the Christianity. Abū Bakar, the first caliph of the Holy Prophet, came out of the Arab peninsula with all of the divine powers of Islam including the militancy, logical reasoning and the true spirit of Islam to occupy both spiritual as well as geographical boundaries of non-believing humanity. ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān and Mu‘āwia continued the Holy

Prophet and Abū Bakar’s mission until they and the coming caliphs occupied the Persia, Syria, Egypt, Africa and Spain. By this approach to the boundaries of the West, Islam impressed the Christian people and affected their spiritual and geographical boundaries. These impacts of Islam on the Christianity are as follow.

1.2.1.1. Political Impacts Because of being dominated by the Muslims for centuries, the Christianity was deprived of its great center of political powers. With the fall of Room, Christianity fell in danger of loosing its geographical boundaries in near future. Basically, Europe was a society of trade and all its departments including army, Senate, judiciary, civil service and media depended on it. But, Islam deprived it from this trade when Muslims occupied Egypt, Syria, and Room. And, all of these departments stopped working except a single. The Church was the only institution that did not depend on trade but it depended on the public and non-governmental resources. So, this religious institution took all the internal, external and administrative affairs in its control. Because, the church was the only institution of the Western Christian world that had to adopt the responsibilities of all the departments of the state, therefore, it had to face a lot of difficulties to tackle with. During this impact of Islam, two main problems were very alarming. First of them was to survive as a state and nation on the map of the world because Islam was approaching very rapidly to other countries as a dominating power. So, the danger of being occupied by the Muslims was a danger not small than any other one. Second of these was the danger of the conversion of the Christians to Islam. This was because Islam had become a very impressive and attractive power for Muslims as well as for Non-Muslims.

1.2.1.2. Religious Impacts.

Before Islam occupied the Room, the religion of its people was Christianity. And, any belief that contradicted the catholic belief was crushed by force a considering it fornication. And, most of such deeds were done under the collective coordination of the Roman state and the church. This shows the power of the church before the approach of Islam to Room. But when Islam occupied Room, the church and all of its authorities and power collapsed with the fall of Roman Empire. So, speaking about religious authority of the church, it was the biggest loss of church in its history when the Pope and his followers had to withdraw from all of their authorities at once. Islam strictly opposed all of the beliefs which entered into the Christianity from Roman culture and civilization. Christianity had adopted these ideas when it entered into Roman state. Islam’s opposition to these catholic ideas weakened the catholic church and gave rise to other churches opposing the catholic one. When catholic church was weakened, its rule over the state was handed over by the politicians who criticized and weakened the ideas and authority of church over the state. All of this collapse of catholic power was because of the advent of Islam.

1.2.1.3. Economic Impacts.

Europe has two golden ages. One of them was the Roman Umpire and the other one was the current age. The income of Roman umpire depended on taxes from occupied countries, receiving of grain from Africa and Egypt, labour of the slaves, agriculture, industry and trade. Most of the territories occupied by Room came under the Islamic occupation. Grain from Egypt and Africa stopped and slaves ended after a generation. In this way, Europe was deprived of almost all external sources and most of the internal sources except the limited basic sources like, limited internal trade, public sources and public income of the catholic church. So the Europe happened to witness the greatest economic decline with the fall of Room into the Muslim state. According to Henry Pirenne, the society of Roman Umpire in seventh century was the society of Mediterranean Sea that

separates Europe from Africa. This society was severely affected by the pressure of Islam. The connection between the east and west ended with the occupation of Islam on it. Islam kept this sea occupied from seventh century to the eleventh century A.D. The trade of Christian world was limitized as a local one. It seemed as if the west were cut off from the circle of civilization because the west had taken most of the items and traditions of its civilization and culture from the Eastern world. Although, East was on the door of Europe in the shape of the Arabs on the beaches of Spain and Africa, But, the religious differences did not allow the Christian and Muslim world to inter connect with each other. 4

In short, after the occupation of Islam on the Roman Umpire, Europe sank into the depth of the religious, military and economic burden.

1.3. Christian Attempts to deal with the Challenge of Islam.

Islam occupied many territories of the Christian world and also affected it in the different ways. So Christianity was never ready to see Islam as a dominating power on the map of the earth. Therefore, the Christian world played many tricks to deal with the challenging power of Islam. The most important strategies adopted by the Christian world against Islam are being discussed in the coming lines. 1.3.1. Military Attack to Defeat Islam.

Christian world used military power on both occasions when Islam was a dominating power as well as when it was about to decline. When Islam was weakened both internally as well as externally by the enemies and hypocrits, the Christian world started the crusades against it. They also called the Muslims with the names of enemies of Christ, the beasts and the terrorists. They did this just to make people stand and fight with the Muslims. Gibbon unveils afew such activities of different Christian nations. He speaks thus: “From Arabia to Euphrates the Arabian tribes are

11 confounded by the Greeks and Latins under the general appellation of Saracens, a name which every Christian has been taught to pronounce with terror and abhorrence.” 5

Southern speaks about the same rigid temper of the Christians against Islam which is expressed in Jean Jermain’s letter to the king of France. He notes Jean Jermain’s words as: “Let us revive the spirit of Godfrey of Bouillon, of Philip the Conqueror King of France, of ST. Louis. If you do this, the whole world will shout. “Honor, glory, and victory to Charles King of France, the Victorious, the new David, the new Constantine, the new Charlemagne, who after all the conquests granted him by God has used them for the relief of the Holy Catholic Faith, and to his own honor and glory and everlasting good name.” 6

1.3.2. Rise of Christianity Through Preaching.

Roger Bacon, a wellknown Christian thinker, reformer and historian, refuted the formula of fighting with the Muslims with sword. He also tried to prove the crusades wrong and advised the Christians for the first time to preach the Christianity to defeat Islam. Southern writes his words in the following way: “If we ask why there is no one to show them the truth, the answer is partly that its equipment has been inadequate. Its aims have been wrong because they have been perverted by the desire for domination which frustrated the work of conversion.”7 Following to this proposal of Roger Bacon, the Christian world took much of their attention to the preaching of the teachings of Christianity. In this way, they organized the teams of missionaries and sent them to different countries who opened missionary schools anywhere they reached. But in spite of using this power against Islam, they could harm it only in the field of military and defence. But, the inner and internal powers of Islam could not be damaged by them. In future, they turned their intentions to raise doubts on the basic sources of Islamic Jurisprudence.

1.3.3. Logical reasoning and Investigation to Refute Islam.

Roger Bacon also stressed to avail the logical reasoning and research to preach the Christianity as well as to refute the Islamic teachings. He says: “Preaching is therefore the only way in which Christendom can be enlarged. But for this there is a lake of equipment in three respects: no one knows the necessary languages; the types of unbelief have not been studied and distinguished; and there has been no study of the arguments by which each can be refuted.”8 1.4. Intellectual History of the Orientalism.

Orientalism has reached the present position through various turns and conditions. Historically we can divide it into three ages. These are as follow:

1.4.1. Beginning and the Medieval Age.(1066-1500 A.D)

According to the historians, it is very difficult to fix the exact date for the start of orientalism. Yet it is said that John of Damascuss was the first person in the seventh century A.D. who started studying the Islamic teachings. But, truly speaking, it cannot be said that it can be considered the age of beginning for the start of orientalism. Moreover, there are two other persons named Peter Alfansi and William of Malmasbury who also studied Islam in the end of the twelfth century A.D. Another orientalist called Ray Mund Lull (1235-1315 A.D.) who said that they started many plansincluding spiritual crusades to deal with the danger of Islam. He also advised the Christian thinkers to open study centers for research about the Eastern world generally and about Islam especially. This was to teach Arabic language to their people so that they could explore the hidden secrets of the rise of the Muslim world as well as the weak points in their society and ritual literature. Southern considers a Qur’ānic translation as the first regular source of

knowledge for European people and points out the beginning of regular study of Islam by the Europeans in the early twelfth century.

Southern has distributed this medieval age into three different modes of Western thinking of Islam and its teachings. According to him, views of Western people had been changing throughout the centuries they studied Islam. So, the views of later scholars roughly differ with the views of the earlier scholars of this age. He defines this age with the following three modes of Western thinking about Islam.

1.4.2. The age of Ignorance.

R.V.C. Bodley speaks about this age and the misunderstandings of the Christian world about Islam. He says:

“The misunderstandings with the Christians did not begin until toward the end of Mohammed’s life and not seriously until the early wars brought on by the Crusaders.” 9

This first model of thinking about Islam in this age is based on the assumption that there was nothing true outside the theological boundaries of the Church. Christianity was ‘the truth’ and the truth was God, therefore no truth (and hence God) lay outside Christianity. The only thing outside Christianity was the devil (the Anti-God) and therefore Islam was the work of the devil and Muhammad was inspired by him. With this line of thinking there was nothing about Islam to be accepted. To them, Muhammad was a false Prophet.

Southern calls this mode of Western thinking as ignorance just because, according to him, Western people spread hateand prejudice against Islam instead of understanding it. They attribute to Islam everything that was hated within the Christian society. In this process, they did not bother themselves even to see either that thing was actually existed within Islam or not.

Southern points out a big reason for Europ’s being ignorant about Islam. He speaks thus:

“In understanding Islam, the West could get no help from antiquity, and no comfort from the present. For an age avowedly dependent on the past for its materials, this was a serious matter.” 10

Montgomery Watt also points out the Western ideas and their image in learned circles in such a critical way:

“Of all the world Great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad….For centuries, Islam was the great enemy of Christendom, since Christendom was in direct contact with no other organized states comparable in power to the Muslims. The Byzantine Empire, after losing some of its best provinces to the Arabs, was being attacked in Ᾱsia Miner, while Western Europe was threatened through Spain and Sicily. Even before the crusades focused attention on the expulsion of the Saracens from the Holy Land, medieval Europe was building up a conception of a great enemy. At a point Muhammad was transformed into Mahound, the prince of darkness. By the twelfth century, the ideas about Islam and Muslims current in the crusading armies were such Travestic that they had a bad effect on moral.”11 In Watt’s opinion, the European ideas about Islam, its prophet, and its followers left negative impact upon the European thinkers rather than upon Islam and Muslims. Another well-known historian, Philip K. Hitti unfolds the real picture of Western views about Islam and Muslims in these lines: “Christians of medieval times misunderstood Muhammad and considered Him a despicable character. The reasons as will be shown later were more historical, that is economic and political than ideological. His earliest portrait as a false prophet and imposture, sketched by ninth-century Greek chronicler as later embellished with the bright colors of ever sexuality, dissoluteness, blood thirstiness and brigandage. In clerical circles Muhammad became the antichrist. His dead body was suspended somewhere between heaven and earth until and Italian convert in 1503 visited Medina and was evidently surprised not to find it in that position. Dente

bisected the trunk of Muhammad’s body and consigned it to the ninth hell as befits the chief of the damned souls, bringers of schism into religion. Western fablers used Maumet, one of forty-one variants of Muhammad’s name listed in the Oxford English Dictionary in the sense of idol. It came to mean “Puppet” or “Doll”. In this sense Shakespeare used the word in “Romeo and “Juliet”. Another variant of the same name Maumet was used in English medieval encyclical plays as an object of worship. Ironically the greatest in iconoclast and the leading champion of the oneness of God in history was metamorphosed into an object of worship”.12 The passages mentioned above clearly define thatin this age, the Western thinkers always tried their best to present a distorted image of Islam, its teachings, and its followers.

1.4.1.2. The Age of Reason and Hope.

In the early scholastic age, the Western people reviewed their hatred against Islam and a bit decreased it with the hope that if the Muslims are taught the teachings of Christianity and behaved friendly or reasonably, They might be the Christians. So, they started thinking about Islam and tried their best to convert the Muslims to Christianity through their friendly attitude towards Islam and the Muslims and with the preaching of Christianity to the Muslims. Accordingly, they kept the prejudice and enmity with Islam and Muslims hidden under their meaningful neutral apparently, but biased and partial inwardly. In the second half of the thirteenth century, Roger Bacon refuted all the previous military missions of the Christianity against Islam. He called them absurd and useless. He openly speaks about the failure of military policies against Islam.

According to Philip K. Hitti also, The Holy wars of crusade and Jihad played their role not more than to increase hatred between the Muslims and Christians and led them separate. He expresses his argument: “The main reason between the Muslims and the Christians which led them a part, was that there existed the holy wars of crusade and jihād”.13

He assures the importance of the preaching of Christianity in all over the world. For the preaching, he highlights the necessity and significance of learning Eastern languages to communicate with the Eastern people. “Preaching is therefore the only way in which Christendom can be enlarged. But for this there is a lack of equipment in three respects: no one knows the necessary languages; the types of unbelief have not been studied and distinguished; and there has been no study of the arguments by which each can be refuted.”14

He considers ‘philosophy’ a useful weapon to convert people to Christianity. According to Southern’s view, people used to study Islam from the books written by the earlier Western writers in the age of ignorance. But after the suggestions of Roger Bacon, he as well as the other Western people started studying Islam from the basic and original Islamic Sources.

In this period, Bacon as well as other Christians hoped the spread and popularity of the Christianity with the preaching of its teachings. They also hoped and argued that Islam would soon decline and come to its end like Judaism with the spread of Christianity. They argued that the only Christianity will survive and lead the world after-wards. But all such wishes and arguments failed in the end and they had to witness only the failure and disappointment.

1.4.1.3. The Age of Vision.

In this age, all the previous dreams of the Christian world died in disappointment Southern writes about the sinking of the hope of the predicted death of Islam in these words. “Very soon after 1290 there are signs of a revolution of feeling against the extravagant hopes of the previous thirty years. The turning point may conveniently be placed at the fall of Acre in May 1291. When the news of its fall reached ltaly, Raymund Lull wrote some Prophetic words which accurately summed up the hopes of the previous decades and foreshadowed the end of these hopes. If the schismatic the Nestorians are brought into the fold and the Tartars converted, all the Saracens can easily be destroyed.”15

In this way, when all the previous hopes of Islam’s merging into the Christianity came to an end,they also felt that the survival of Christianity is in danger because Islam is spreading very rapidly. In the age of ignorance, people took Muhammad as a magician but, afterwards, they changed their view and started to consider him a priest who left the Christianity in agitation just because he was not elected as a pope.

In this age even in the last half of the fourteenth century, John Wycliffe kept alive the opinion of peter Alfansi that Islam is a mockery or facsimile of the Christianity. But, though the Western world considered Islam a mockery of Christianity yet they also counted Islam as a separate religion of the world in the same age. Though, the orientalism had become a much organized expedition up to the beginning of the thirteenth century, yet they did not have a single scholar who was fully aware of the Arabic language. During this period,Nicholas wrote a book about Qurān in 1460 A.D. in which he has described three major sources of the Holy Qurān from outside the sphere of Islam. It was the same time when Luther disappointed from the conversion of the Muslims to the Christianity.

But on the contrary, he felt the danger of the conversion of Christianity into Islam. In this period only Jean Jermaine, a famous religious leader of the Christians, was of the opinion that the Muslims should be defeated by starting Crusades against them again. But this suggestion could not gain popularity among the Christian thinkers. But Luther, on the contrary, suggested to reform the Christianity internally instead of fighting with Islam. Luther bravely spoke and pointed out two enemies for Christianity. According to his observation, Islam was external enemy of Christianity while its internal enemy was the Pope himself sitting in the Church. Southern describes his statements. “He asked whether Mahomet and his followers were the final Antichrist. Like Joachim of Fiore, he answered No. Islam was too gross and irrational for this mighty role: the true and final, subtle and insidious Antichrist must come from within the Church: he was none other than the pope himself.”16

It was the first time ever in the history of Christianity and orientalism when any of the Western thinkers suggested the Christian world to search the hypocrites and the anti- Christ within their own world instead of wasting their energy in wars against the Muslims. After this a good series of books and articles was written by the orientalists in which they appreciated Islamic teachings and admired the Holy Prophet. The basic purpose of their knowledge about basic Islamic sources, Muslim countries and their precious assets was to highlight the sectarianism among Muslims to make them fight with each other and then to occupy the Muslim lands and territories

1.4.1.4. Period of Sixteen to Seventeenth Century.

There were still some partial orientalists who carried on saying that Islam was a religion of idolatry. Bodley writes about the period of Shakespeare (1564-1616 A.D.) He speaks thus: “In the minds of the contemporaries of Shakespeare, Mammetry grew to mean any false religion, especially one which worshiped idols. Maumet was used currently to signify idols. Mahomerie, and thence mummery, are derived from the same source.” 17

Bodley clearly describes that some people used to attribute some false tales to Islam and its Prophet. He says: “The proverbial saying about Mohammed and the mountain has no connection with Arabia of the seventh century. Its first mention is probably not before Bacon’s essay, “Of Boldness, “which he published about 1597 after Christ.”18

During this period, some institutions were opened for the study of Arabic language in Western countries. For example; the first center of Arabic was opened in 1539 A.D. in ‘College de France’. Its first president was Guillaume postal. He is called Grand father of the orientalists because he was a much learned person of the Christian teachings. Following this initiative, such centers for Arabic learning started in almost all the countries and big cities of the West like London, Paris, Cambridge, Glasgow, Edinburgh and saint Andrews. College of propaganda was founded in 1627 A.D. in Room for the study of eastern languages. B. de Herb Lot published his book named “Bibliotheque oriental” with the help of material provided by the orientalists in 1697A.D. This work was the first effort towards the publishing an Encyclopedia of Islam in the West. The direct study of Muslim sources of knowledge about Islam encouraged the trend of impartial study of Islam. And, some orientalists arose who not only admitted Islam as a solid reason but also appreciated its ideas and teachings. In the same age, Dr. Henry Stubbe wrote his work “The Rise and Fall of Mahomatanism.” This book can undoubtedly be considered the first apology from the west to Islam and its Prophet. But there were a good number of people who still thought that

Muhammad has encouraged idolatry. Bodly writes about this tradition in Eyrope. He writes as under: “They called images Mammets and the adoration of images Mammetry, says this seventeenth century scholar, that is Mahomets and Mahometry, odious names, when all the world knows that the Turks synonymous then the Moslem are forbidden images in their religion”19 Bodly explains these attitudes of Western people in the followingwords: “But such statements of fact were rare, and the general conviction prevailed that any self-styled religion which had come into being since the death of Christ must be an imposition. There are also biographers who have gone to the other extreme and have made Mohammet out to be a saint, if not be a god—biographers who have attributed to him miracles and supernatural performances and divine powers which are no more true than the accusations of George Sale and his school of thinkers. One of Mohammed’s last requests before he died was: “O Lord, let not my tomb be ever an object of worship.”20 William Bedwell belonged to this very period. He was much prejudiced and ant-Islam as well. He called Islam a wrong religion. He expressed his anti-Islam views in his book ‘Muhammadis Imposture’. Mahmood Khan Shairani has explained these views in thefollowing way: “A spiritual Conference, between two doctors:Sheich Sinan and Doctor Ahmad: held on their return from Mecca. Profitable for every Musulman, man and woman. Its translator, William Bedwell , an English divine, Christened it with the following title: Mohammedis imposture: that is, a discovery of the Manifold Forgeries, Falsehoods, and horrible impieties of the blasphemous seducer Mohammed: with a demonstration of the insufficiency of this law, contained in the cursed Al Koran.”21 Our earlier discussions show that this age of the orientalism witnessed both type of views of Western people like those of the age of ignorance and those of the new age of vision and sincerity. But the views of the age of ignorance were taking their last breath. It was the time when, According to Arbery’s

statement, the first use of the word ‘Orientalist’ was used for a priest of Eastern or Greek church in 1630 A.D.”22 In this age, Western attempts succeeded to produce a good number of well-known orientalists with their remarkable works on various aspects of Islamic teachings. Some of these orientalists are being mentioned here: • John Davenport (1597-1670 A. D.)

An Apology for Mohammed and the Koran.

• William Bedwell (1561-1632)

Muhammadis Imposture.

1.4.1.5. From Eighteenth Century to the Present Day.

The modern shape of orientalism was founded in eighteenth century by Silvester De Sacy (1758-1836 A.D.) of France and Edward William Lane (1801-1872 A.D.) of England.

Edward Said writes about it:

“But I think it is also true that the major steps in Oriental scholarship were first taken in either Britain and France, then elaborated upon by Germans. Silvest de Sacy, for example, was not only the first modern and institutional European Orientalist, who worked on Islam, Arabic literature, the Druze religion, and Sassanid Persia; he was also the teacher of Champollion and of Franz Bopp, the founder of German comparative linguistics. A similar claim of priority and subsequent pre- eminence can be made for William Jones and Edward William Lane.”23

Edward Said comments about the countries and personalities who contributed for orientalism in the end of seventeenth century.

He describes them in this way:

“Yet my discussion of that domination and systematic interest does not do justice to (a) the important contributions to Orientalism of Germany, Itlay, Russia, Spain, and Portugal and (b) the fact that one of the important impulses toward the study of the Orient in the eighteenth century was the revolution in Biblical studies stimulated by such

22 variously interesting pioneers as Bishop Lowth, Eichhorn, Heder, and Michaelis.”24

Although we have written earlier that the word orientalist was first used in 1630 A.D. But, it was individual use of this word. According to the statement of Rodinson, the word orientalism entered into English language in 1779 A.D. And in Classical dictionary in 1838 A.D.25

In the eighteenth century, Orientalists founded their individual organizations, foundations, and institutes for the study of Islam and the Arabic language . Dr. Abdul Qadir Jalani has described a list of these institutionswhich were founded during this period. We are going to quote the following list with the reference of his work.

a- William Jones founded the Asiatic society of Bangal in India in 1784 A.D. b- East India company founded the Fort William College in Colcatta in 1800 A.D. This college managed to translate Eastern book from Arabic and Persian to English. c- Paris Asiatic society was founded in French in 1821 A.D. d- An ‘Oriental Academy’ was founded in Viyana in 1809 A.D. e- A ‘Paris Asiatic Society’ was also founded in 1821 in France.26 This trend of the foundation of Arabic study centers continued in the next centuries just because they gave very positive results towards understanding Islam and its teachings. Universities remained under the influence of Church. Therefore, the independent study about Islam could not be started in these institutions. But, because in the eighteenth century, a good collection of Islamic knowledge came into the access of the orientalists because of the translations of the original Arabic sources. So, the orientalists themselves started omitting their writings based on their own assumptions. Edward Pocock warned the Western readers on the basis of his own study of basic and original Arabic sources that the Arab world laugh at the tale of the box attributed to Muhammad by the Western people. He openly called a fabrication of the Western people that does not have any link with the Prophet of Islam.27

He also criticized the story of the pigeon in which it is said that the pigeon used to sit on the shoulder of the Holy Prophet to

eat grains from His ear. From this the Holy Prophet used to show that the Angel is delivering revelation to him in the shape of a pigeon.28

Humphrey Prideaux, a contemporary of Edison, wrote a book in which he fixed some rules of criticism and criticized the fake stories attributed to Islam and Muhammad saying that they have no basis and are much away from the reality. And that such tricks could not be remained hidden from the Arabs.29

Humphrey’s book refutes the fake attributions on one side but on the other side its very title (Nature of Imposter Displayed) shows his negative purpose of writing. In this age, though some of the old prejudiced ideas remained reproduced but a good number of orientalists not only rejected these ideas but also expressed several new ideas in which they have appreciated Islam, its Prophet and the Muslims. A regular series of apologies for Islam and the Holy Prophet, came into being in the same age. The writer of an article ‘Muhammad’ in the Encyclopedia of religion and Ethics writes about these apologies as under:

“Apologies for Muhammad were started in the 18th cent, by H. de Boulainvilliers, who was favoured by Gibbon because this apology provided some instruments against Christianity. More importance was attached to the lecture of Carlyle on ‘The Hero as Prophet,’ incorporated in the collection called On Heroes and Hero Worship (London, 1841), in which Muhammad was taken as the type of a heroic just as Odin was made the type of heroic divinity, the author’s knowledge of the two personalities being about equal. Another apologist who acquired some popularity was Bosworth Smith.”30

In the nineteenth century Western institutes and the individual orientalists collected such a huge bulk of Material about each aspect of life that it became impossible for an individual to be expert in all the fields of life. So they had to classify this store of knowledge about Islam in different fields. This century produced the following orientalists who wrote a good number of remarkable books on different aspects of Islamic teachings.

2. George Sale (1697-1736)

i. The Koran: Commonly called the Alcoran of Muhamad (1734) ii. Sacred Books of the East. 3. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History.

4. Godfrey Higgins. (1773-1833 A. D.) An Apology for Muhammad 5. Stanley Lane-Poole (1854-1931)

Speeches and Table Talk of Prophet Muhammad.

6. Bosworth Smith(1784-1884)

Muhammad and Muhammadanism.

7. Washington Irving (1783-1859)

Mohammad and his successors.

8. Dr. Aloys Sprenger. (1813-1893)

The Life of Muhammad.

9. Earnest Renan (1823-1892)

i. History of the Religions ii. Life of Jesus Christ (1863) iii. Genneral History and comparative system of scientific languages. 10. William Muir. (1819-1905)

(i) The life of Mahomet 4 vols. 1858-1862. (ii) Mahomet and Islam. i. The Apology of Al Kindi. ii. Annals of the Early Caliphate. iii. The Koran, Its Composition and Teaching. iv. The Mohammadan Controversy. v. The Rise and Decline of Islam. vi. The Teaching of the Koran. 11. Ignaz Goldziher. (1850-1921)

i. Muslim Studies.

ii. An Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law.

12. D.S. Margoliouth (1858-1940)

i. Muhammad and the Rise of Islam (1905) ii. Mohammadanism (1912) iii. The Early Development of Mohammadanism (1914) iv. The Eclips of the Abbassid Caliphate (1922) v. The Relations Between Arabs and Israelites Prior to the Rise of Islam (1921)

13. H.A.R.Gibb. (1895-1971)

i. Modern Trends in Islam (1947) ii. Mohammadanism; A Historical Survey.

14. Henry Stubbe (1932-1976)

i. A Light Shining out of Darkness (1659) ii. An Account of the Rise and Progress of Mahometansm (1674) iii. A Vindication of that Prudeant and Honourable Knight( 1659)

15. Philip K. Hitti.(1886-1978)

i. History of the Arabs. ii. The Syrians in America (1924) iii. The Arabs (1960) iv. The Near East in History

Moreover, Ernest Renan, A.Von, Dozi and Leone Catani also belong to this century. All of them played very effective role in the progress of sincere study of Islam and its history.

1.4.1.6. Fashion of Criticizing the World Religions.

It is the specification of the nineteenth century that it became a general fashion to criticize all the religions of the world. It was just because the role of Church about the beliefs of religion and independent knowledge of science and nature was so conjusted. Church did not allow

26 any scholar to speak against the Christian beliefs even if they were the productions of the individuals and contradicted the rules of nature.

Eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries proved the climax of West and orientalism in which each of the institution did a lot of work based on research. After this, a new era started in the very beginning of the twentieth century that abolished most of the old trends and encouraged the new and independent ones. The main reason for it was a change in the world politics. People of East and West, dominated by Christianity, stood against their masters to win freedom. And, in many areas, the masters had to withdraw from their dominations. In this way, the dominated nations expressed their agitations and refused to confirm the ideas and dictations of Christian world. The orientalists observed that their sayings and observations are losing popularity in the world. They started thinking about its reasons and concluded that their popularity of the previous two centuries can be promoted no more. But, it can be maintained only through impartial and deep research of Eastern religions especially of Islam. So, they started specialization in all the fields of Islamic knowledge like, Qur’ānic exegesis, Ḥadīth, Islamic jurisprudence, and history. This deep research of each subject of Islam produced a realistic sense, free of prejudice, in many orientalists like Godfrey Higgins, John Davenport, Thomas Carlyle, and Montgumary watt who introduced a new methodology of deep and professional research that was least impressed by prejudice. Inspite of all of these new trends in research, the orientalists did not forget that they are Christians or Jews and they had started their research to point out weak points in Islamic religion and its literature. In this century they expressed their ideas which follow.

A. Spread and victories of Islam were a result of political, social and economic factors not because of Islamic teachings and beliefs. B. The Holy Prophet was a political and social reformer not a Prophet. C. Caitani stated that Muhammad was a very active politition. D. The Holy Prophet recovered his economic weaknesses through the booty from battles with nonbelievers. E. A good number of orientalists like Weber maintained that Muhammad was an opportunist. In short orientalism has passed through many ups and downs in which it had to change its modes and attitudes time and again.

The old ideas were left aside and new ones were adopted by the orientalists. We have observed in the previous pages about the history of the orientalism that in the present stage it had set aside almost all the claims made by the orientalists in the first two periods. Orientalism had to do this all just because of the changing of world politics as well as modern trends in research. When the new generation of the orientalists observes these changes in the ideas of their predecessors, they feel themselves on the point between doubt and investigation. They saw that the pioneer orientalists attacked on Islam with the weapons of prejudice and hatred and these who came later rejected the ideas of the pioneers. Therefore, these juniors are also thinking that either they should reject the biased ideas of their predecessors or not. So, we see and observe that orientalism has lost its fame that the people of Europe enjoyed earlier because people all over the world have seen and analyzed the real picture of orientalism.

1.5. Introduction to Orientalists’ Study of Ḥadīth.

Ignaz Goldziher

(22, June, 1850- 13, November, 1921)

1. Birth and Early Education.

He was born in Szikesfehervar, a city of Hungry on 22nd of June 1850. He is also written as Ignaz Goldziher (Yitzhaq Yehuda) in Hungry as well as in Europe. He was a Jew by birth who was naturally fond of reading. It is why he started studying the Greek edition of the Old Testament even in the age of five. He completed the thoroughly study of Talmud when he was of eight years. It was his passion which compelled him and made him able to write a dissertation on the basis and kinds of ‘Hebrew Psalms (sacred songs)’ and got it published in 12th year of his age.

2. Higher Education and Service.

He was of 16 when he was considered a school boy.He started attending the classes of philosophy and the ancient languages like Persian and Turkish in the Budapest University. In the very next year he was offered a scholarship by the education ministry of Hungarian government for higher education and research in Germany. Here, he studied and got the degree of doctorate from the universities of Leipzig and Berlin when he was of 19. After the completion of his degree he became privatdozent (occasional lecturer) at Budapest university in 1872. Then he left Germany for Holland for study where he stayed for six months in the university of Leiden which was considered the greatest center of Islamic Studies in Europe at that time. His tour to Holland changed his interest of research. The research work done by him until then now was related to the study of Hebrew , Greek and Arabic languages. But when he came to Leiden and studied here about the teachings of Islam, his mode and interest converted to the study of Islam. He made it his mission to study the teachings of Islam and was given a chance by the Hungarian government to have a study tour to middle east where he stayed from September 1873 to April 1874. He spent most of his time in Damascus and Cairo. No Non-Muslim was allowed to study in the university of al-Aẓhar but Goldziher was the first Non-Muslim who got special permission to attend the lectures of Arab scholars of Islam in the al-Aẓhar university. According to his diary, his experience of the tour to Middle East was the best and most fruitful time of his life, this visit also shows his deep feelings of sympathy with Islam, and of kinship with the Muslims. He speaks about his feelings of these days in this way that In those days, he invardly embraced the spirit of Islam to such an extent that he became inwardly convinced that he himself was a Muslim, and judiciously discovered that this was the only faithcould satisfy philosophic minds. His ideal was to elevate Judaism to a similar rational level. Islam, as his experience informedly, was the only religion, in which superstitious and heathen ingredients were not frowned upon by rationalism, but by orthodox Doctrine”31

In Cairo he also said a prayer in the mosque. He said:

“Amongthe thousands of the pious, he touched his forehead that the floor of Mosque al-Alhar.Throughout his life he never had been as devout as on the Friday.”32

But unfortunately, he could not stay here for long time, He happened to listen to a sad news that his father was in danger of death, business of his familys was falling down and themode of the Ministry of education of his country changed because of financial crisis. Therefore he had to lessen his study tour at the spot and came back to his home. In spite of such a bigger difficulties his educational reputation increased day by day. In 1874, he wrote his work in the proceedings of the imperial academy in Vienna. This publication made him an International scholar of modern oriental studies and languages. He was also considered the founder of a new and modern science of Islamic studies. In spite of all of these achievements and reputation, he could not start his academic career in his native land.

This was the age when a severe anti-semitic movement was in actionin Hungary. So most of the academic appointments were taken back from Jews. He was selected as an extra ordinary member of the Hungarian Academy in 1876. A great gold medal was awarded to him at the Stockholm Oriental Congress in 1889. Then he was made an ordinary member of the Hungarian Academy in 1892. In 1890 he published his work on ḥadīth ‘Muhammedanische Studiene’ in which he showed how ḥadīth reflected the legal and doctrinal controversies of the two centuries after the death of Muhammad rather than the words of Muhammad Himself. His more views expressed in this book will be mentioned in the end of his biographical introduction. He could not receive the title of professor until 1894, the time when the legislative assembly formally recognized Judaism as equal to the three Christian denominations existing in the country. Even now he could avail the title only not the faculty benefits and salary. He was not given these facilities in spite of the fact that the Eighth International Congress of Orientalists awarded him a gold medal for his scholarly workss. He was also offered a chair at Cambridge University, after W. Robertson Smith but he denied it because he was not receiving salary by the Government. So he turned for his livelihood to the Jewish community and worked here for thirty years as secretary from 1876 to 1905. This was not a proper job for him because he could not afford time for his scholarly activities. Then, finally, he received the title of genuine professorship in the university of Budapest in 1904 at first in Semitics and then in the chair of Muslim Law and Institution in the faculty of Laws in 1914.33

On May 1906 Goldziger wrote in his diary “I have received an invitation from America to give a series of six lectures for the society for lectures on the History of religion, at eight universities, on the history of Islam. Honorarium $2,500. This will give me something to think about for many nights”34 In reply to this offer he wrote his book “Introduction to Islamic theology and Law” that consisted on six lectures on Islam in six chapters within a year. He writes on 8 September 1907 “on 22nd June I was able to bring my American lectures to completion: six chapters, rich in content, in which I dealt exhaustively with the history of the development of Islam”35

But could not deliver these lectures just because of his. He notes in his diary on 2 April 1908: “I am getting the English translations of my lectures in installments. Miserable work, especially the ones I got from Berlin through the intermediary of Yahuda. On top of that I am again seriously ill, and cannot expose myself to stress and strain, but can only work in my usual routine. I am now wondering whether it would not be in the interest of my health to give up the American plan, even now, almost at the last moment. The comparsion of the botched English job with my own original, successful in form as in content, causes me terrible distress, which will become permanent if I continue to collate them. I haven’t the strength for this. It grieves my heart when I observe the mangling of my fine work from line to line. How can I put this in order?”36 finally this work was published with the approbation of the order Noldeke and Snouck hurgronge who were the major Islamists at that time except Goldziher himself. Afterwards this book took its place as a major classic of Islamic studies. It was published in 1910 at the time when Goldziher had reached 60 and was at the climax of his intellectual power. It was translated into different languages Rassian, 1911, Hungarian 1912, An English translation with the title ‘Muhammad and Islam in 1917, French 1920, Arabic 1946, Hebrew 1951. Goldziher died on November 13, 1921. In his scholarly life he represented the Hungarian government and the ‘Academy of Sciences’ at numerous international congresses. His weight as a scholar in the field of scholarship was due to his careful investigation of pre-Islamic and Islamic law, tradition, religion and poetry, in connection with these he published a good number of treatises, review articles and essays contributed to the collections of the Hungarian Academy.

1.5.1. Critique of Goldziher’s Major Ideas Expressed in his ‘Muslim Studies’.

Goldziher, in spite of his love and devotion for Islam, that has been expressed by himself and are mentioned earlier in this Chapter, he remained a passionate Jew all his life. He has expressed two types of arguments about Islam, the Holy Prophet and the Muslim world. One in which he has expressed a deep sympathy and devotion for Islam that he seems as if he were a Muslim or at least converted to Islam when he was writing his lines about Islam. But on the other hand when he entered into the depth of the Islamic literature, he used to become a true anti- Islamic personality. Sometimes he becomes very partial in his writings about Islam and its teachings. Some of his such ideas and arguments, expressed by him in Muslim Studies, and their critical analysis are being mentioned for the better understanding of his attitude towards Islam. Muslim Studies (Volium I) • No true and original Arab is ready to leave any of the ancient Arab traditions at any cost.37 • Much of the Qur’ānic and ḥadīth material is derived from Judaism, Christianity and ancient Arab traditions etc.38He believed strongly in the view that Islamic Law owes its origins to Roman Law. In his numerous books and articles, he sought to find the origins of Islamic doctrines and rituals in the practices of other cultures. In doing so, he posited that Islam continuously developed as a civilization, importing and exporting ideas. Moreover, his disdain for the Catholic Church and the dogmas synods and councils arbitrarily imposed on believers led him to proclaim that Islamic tolerance of other religions and acceptance of non-orthodox ideas made it a far more superior religion and a model that all three monotheistic faiths should strive to emulate. But according to Patricia Crone Goldziher’s arguments are weak and cannot be considered valid.39 • Contrary to the ancient Arabs, Islam and its Prophet preferred forgiveness on revenge.40

• Drinking of wine was allowed in Islam even when the Holy Prophet had passed away. but it was prohibited afterwards with the passage of time.41 • There was no remarkable way of religious prayer in pre-Islamic Arab society.42 • Arabs gave preference to Arabic songs on the sacred book of the Almighty.43 • Islam finished the tribalism from the community44 but some of the rigid and Arabs did not leave this tradition.45 • It is difficult to define which parts of the Messenger’s speach on the last pilgrimage are original because it has been edited by the people who came later.46 • A few of the predictions were falsely fathered to the last Messenger.47 • The social conditons of tribal life produced aḥadīth.48 • AnṢār were not in favor of Muḥajirī from Macca internally.49 • Holy Prophet’s advice to the Muslims to mention him in the beginning, middle and in the end of their prayers is an old arab tradition.50 • Public entered intoIslam to get material benefits and power.51 • Many of the traditions which mention theMessenger from Ismailite generation were invented.52

Muslim Studies (Volume II) • Writing of ḥadīth began in the time of Messenger.53 • The Arabs gave preference to memorization upon the writing of traditions.54 • Sunnah was all that corresponded to the traditions of the Arabs and the customes and habits of their ancestry.55 • Islamic concept of sunnah is a revised statement of ancient Arab customes and traditions.56 • The authority of sunnah of the Messenger as the normative principal is as old as the religion of Islam.57 • Ummayyad rulers encouraged the forgery of traditions against Ᾱlī and in favor of ‘Uthmān.58 • The Ummayyad caliph Abd al-Malik asked Ẓuhrī to advise people to perform the circumambulation (tawaf) of Qubbat al-Sakhra in Jerusalem. And for this, Ẓuhrī was asked to spread the sayings

according to which people may make pilgrimages to three Mosques: Those in Mecca, Madina and Jerusalem.59 • Ẓuhrī allowed Umayyad Ibrāhīm b. al-Walīd to spread aḥādīth written by the Umayyad, as if Ẓuhrī reported hem to him.60 • The Abbasids abolished all the aḥādīth favoring the Umayyad dynasty.61 • The anti-Umayyads forged anti-Umayyadtraditions against the Umayyads.62 • Some aḥādīth were forged to defend the fabricated aḥādīth.63

Goldziher’s this book as well as his other works on Islam show indirectly that the time in which we are living now a days is much different from that of Goldziher’s period. In Goldziher’s time, all the Western Non-Muslim scholars used to address the Western and Non- Muslim community. They were unaware of the possibility that their writings would be seen by the Muslim people as well. Lewis observes goldziher and his contemporaries’ mode and attitude of addressing their audience. He expresses his observation as under:

“Unlike the modern Western writer on Islamic or other Asian and African topics, Goldziher and his contemporaries had no need to take thought of a possible Muslim reader, but addressed themselves exclusively to a Western audience. Along with virtually all Western writers up to and including his time, he ascribes the authorship of the Qur’an to Muhammad, and cites and discusses it accordingly. For the Muslim, to whom the Qur’an is of divine authorship, this is sacrilege or blasphemy, and the Muslim custom is invariably to cite God as the author and to introduce a Qur’ānic quotation with the words, “God said.” Modern orientalist scholarship has adopted an intermediate position, and cites the Qur’ān as itself: “the Qur’ān says.” This has two advantages. It avoids shocking Muslim sensitivity, without committing the writer to a Muslim theological position. It also avoids confusion with Muslim tradition concerning the sayings of the Prophet (ḥadīth), which in Muslim practice is cited with the formula, ”Muhammad said.”64

Goldziher tried his best to search foreign impact on Islamic Literature of both Qur’ān and ḥadīth. but Muslims strongly agitated against his statements like this. Lewis speaks about this: “Goldziher’s unself-conscious reference to Muhammad’s authorship of the Qur’ān is paralleled by his calm and open discussion of another subject that has

34 since become sensitive and delicate-the pre-Islamic and foreign influences in the Qur’ān and ḥadīth. From a strictly Muslim point of view, to speak of foreign influence in Qur’ān and hadith is to speak of foreign influences on God, and is self-evidently absurd and blasphemous. Modern orientalists, while for the most part not accepting Muslim doctrines, have taken care to avoid offending Muslim feelings, and this has made their discussion of such topics cautious and sometimes insincere.”65To study the detailed critique of Goldziher’s views see Mustafa Sibā‘ī’s work on the authority of ḥadīth in Islam ‘Al- Sunnah Wa Makānatuhā fi at-Tashrī‘ al-Islami. Despite his controversial behaviour towards Islam and Its sources, we cannot deny that he was one of the greatest figures who devoted the whole of his life for the study of Islam as a professional scholar and was considered the founder of the new trend of the study of Islam in Europe. This is why he will live even after his death in the memories of Western readers of Islam and the other people of the world for more long than he lived on the face of this earth.

Only biographical introduction of Goldziher is included in this work just because he is the founder of the trend of hadith studies in Europe and he has introduced a lot of new research methods for ḥadīth studies in the West. Rest of the works on ḥadīth have not been commented on in detail because,

a. Main motive of this thesis is not just to introduce the works of orientalists on ḥadīth. b. Most of the later works on ḥadīth have been derived or borrowed from Goldziher’s writings or are a reprint of it. Therefore here only the names of authors and the titles of their works are being mentioned here.

• Joseph Schacht.(15 March 1902 - 01-August 1969)

(a) Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. (1950)

(b) An Introduction to Islamic Law (1964).

Alfred Guillaume.(1888 – 1966)

The Traditions of Islam. • A. J. Robson.

(a) The Isnād in Muslim Tradition, Glasgow University Oriental Society Transactions, vol. 15, 1955, pp.15-26 (b) The material of tradition, Muslim world,4, 1951, 166-80, 257-70. (c) Tradition: Investigation and Classification, M.W.41, 1951, 98-112. (d) Tradition: The second Foundation of Islam, M.W.41, 1951, 22-32. (e) The Transmission of Ibn Māja’s Sunnan, Journal of Semitic Studies, 3, 1958, 129-141. • Alois Sprenger (1813-1893) On the Origin and Progress of Writing Down Historical Facts among the Musalmans, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,25, 1856, p. 303-81. • G.H.A. Juynboll. (a) Muslim tradition: Studies in Chronology, Provenance and Authorship of Early Ḥadith. (b) Encyclopedia of Canonical Ḥadith. (c) Studies on the Originsand Uses of Islamic Ḥadīth.

• D.S. Margoliouth. (1858-1940) Muhammad and the Rise of Islam. • Harald Motzki Harald Motzki is a Germanscholar of Islam who writes on the transmission of hadith. He did his PhD in Islamic Studies in 1978 from the University of Bonn. Currently he is Professor of Islamic Studies at Nijmegen University (Radboud Universitet Nijmegen) in the Netherlands. Following are his famous works on Ḥadith. (a) Ḥadīth. (b) Annalysing Muslim Traditions. (c) Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence.

• Nabia Abbott (31 January 1897- 15 October 1981) (a) Ḥadīth literature-II: Colllection and Transmission of Hadith.” In Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, edited by A.F.L. Beeston, et al, pp. 289-98. Cambridge University Press, 1983. (b) Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri: Qur’ānic Commentry and Tradition. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute

Publications, Volume 76. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967.

1.5.2. Research Methodology of Orientalism in Ḥadīth Studies. When the Orientalists entered into the world of Islamic literature, they took the task of reproducing or interpreting this literature in a way very different to the Muslims. As a whole Muslim way of research seems positive but the Western way is quite sceptical. To arise more and more affective skepticism about the original sources of Islamic beliefs, they used different tactics. Some of which proved successful both in the West as well as in the East. But some of them failed to produce their required benefits. So, they kept using, changing, and discovering the new techniques with the passage of time. Some of their common techniques are being mentioned below with references to their sources. 1.5.2.1. Relying Upon Western Sources Instead of the Original Islamic Ones. While studying Islam, its sources and beliefs, most of the Orientalists rely upon the works of their predecessors. Cross analysis of the early and later works of Western scholars will clearly confirm this statement. For example Juynboll and Guillaume Alfred follow their predecessors Goldziher and Schacht in making grounds for their writings. Two of the very many instances are being provided here to illustrate this analysis clearly. A- Juynboll in his Muslim tradition’ covered the same ground of Schacht as he did in his origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. According to Juynboll, he admired Schacht’swork Origins and has benefited from his ideas.66 B- In the same way Guillaume follows Goldziher in many of his conclusions and dedications in ḥadīth studies. In his work on ḥadith cross analysis of the work of Guillaume and Goldziher’s show evidently that they match each other. Only a single instance is being written here for proof. Goldziher writes on the motives behind the fabrication of hadith.

“The possibilities which the Muslim admit themselves in this field are evident from a tradition in which the authorities seem to give away the secret quite unconsciously: ‘The Prophet,’ it says in a tradition in al-Bukhārī, ‘gave the order to kill all dogs except hunting and sheep-dogs.’ ‘Umer’s son was told that Abū Hurairah also hands down the word ‘but with the exception of farm dogs as well. ‘Umer’s son says to this: ‘Abū Hurayra owns cornfield,’i.e. he has a vested interest in handing down the order with the addition that farm dogs should be spared as well. This remark of Ibn ‘Umer is characteristic of the doubt about the good faith of the transmitters that existed earliest period of the formation of tradition.67

Guillaume followed Goldziher, misinterpreted the wording of Ibn ‘Umer and questioned the authority of a sound ḥadīth. He writes: “A most significant recognition within ḥadīth itself of the untrustworthiness of guarantors is to be found in Bukhārī. Ibn ‘Umer reports that Muhammad ordered all dogs to be killed save sheep-dogs and hounds. Abū Hurayara added the word au Zar‘in;Where upon Ibn ‘Umer makes the remark, Abū Hurayara owned cultivated land !A better illustration of the underlying motive of some ḥadīth can hardly be found.68 Not only this one or a few such examples, but a good number of the ideas and statements of Guillaume are nothing but the imitations of Goldziher’s works. 1.5.2.2. Alteration or Misinterpretation of Islamic literature. The orientalist commonly remain in wait of some chance to question or misinterpret the Islamic literature. Even if somewhere they see that the concept of some statement can be changed with the changing of words, they do it easily. For this, they change the concept of a statement both by changing its world and by changing or misinterpreting its concept. Both types of this alteration are being described here with solid proofs.

1.5.2.2.1. Verbal Alteration in Hadith Literature.

Sir Syed Ahmed khan has commented on an event of the childhood of the Holy Prophet, which has been altered and misinterpreted by both William Muir and Dr. Pococke. Sir William Muir has blamed that Hishāmī and later writers add that the husband of Ḥalīma concluded that the infant boy ‘had a fit of epilepsy’69

Sir Syed presents the actual wording of Hishamis book published at Gottingen in 1858, under the supervision of Dr. Ferdinand Wustenfeld. That wording with English translation reads thus:

”قالت و قال لى ابوه ياحليمة لقد خشيت ان يكون هذا الغالم قداصيب فالحقيه باهله“70

“Ḥalīma said she was told by his (the Prophet’s) foster-father (ḥalīma’s husband) that ‘O Ḥalīma, I fear that the infant has received an evil spirit- that is, is under the influence of an evil spirit-therefore let him be sent back to his family.”71

In original text, the word is Oseeba not Omeeba as mentioned by William Muir in note, p. 21 volume I of his work the Life of Mahomet. First of all, Muir has changed the word in the text.Secondly, he has given it the wrong meaning ‘had a fit’ that did not have this meaning actually.

On the other hand, Dr. Pococke has also mistranslated the passage of Abulfidd,s work into Latin. This translation was along with its original in Arabic printed from Pococke’s Manuscript, atoxford in 1723. Sir Syed has quoted this original text in Arabic that reads:

"و قال ذوج حليمة لها قد خشيت ا ّن هذا الغالم قداصيب فالحقيه باهله فاحتملته حليمة و ق ّدمت به الى ا ّمه "72

“Then Ḥalīma,s Husband told her, ‘I am greatly afraid of the boy’s catching the Hypochondriacal diseas from some or his companions; therefore, taking him (the boy) from Ḥalīma, he carried him back to his mother, Amina.”)

Sir Syed explains the alteration in ḥadīth by the Western writers in the following words:

“The mistake occasioned in the text is that, instead of the expression fa which means “reach him,” is used that of bil , فالحقيههههه alhakeehe which implies “right,” or “indeed” ; but when the , بالحقيههههة hakkeeyute translator found that he could not reconcile that the passage with the whole text, - for how could he ? – he omitted the meaning of the word

,اصهههيب in the translation. Again, upon coming to the word Oseeba بالحقيهههة he translated it “contraxerit,” or “caught,” but not finding in the original what he caught, and it being necessary, both for the sense of the passage, as well as for grammar, to find some object which he (the boy) caught, he supplied it, at a guess, by Hypochondria, the falling sickness.”73

Another big mistake has been committed either by the translator has فاحتملتههه حليمههة و قهه ّدمت بههه الههى ا ّمههه or by Sir Syed, that is; the Arabic text been translated as ‘taking him (the boy) from Ḥalīma, he carried him back to his mother’ considering the child’s foster father as subject instead of his mother, the correct one may be ‘then Ḥalīma took (the child) and carried him to his mother’.

The previous discussions show that the text as well as the concept of the tradition is changed by both Muir and Dr. Pococke. Sir Syed points out that this explanation of this ḥadīth mentioned by the Westerns in the light of a Greek superstition; ‘Owing to the mysterious and extraordinary character of the convulsions of epilepsy, it was always supposed by them to be due, in a very special manner, to the influence of gods or of evil spirits.’74

To support his assertion, Sir Syed quotes Davenport who clearly confirms his statement. He proceeds:

“In support of what is there said, we quote the opinion of a very learned, judicious, and lberal author, who says, “The assertion so often repeated, that Muhammad was subject to epileptic fits, is a base invention of the Greeks, who would seem to impute that morbid affection to the apostle of a novel creed, as a stai……n upon his moral character, deserving the reprobation and abhorrence of the Christian world .”75 The great historian Gibbon’s opinion is also worthy of quoting Sir Syed quotes it.

“His (Mohammed’s) epileptic fits, an absurd calumny of the Greeks, would be an object of pity rather than abhorrence…The epilepsy, or falling sickness, of Mohammed is asserted by Theophanes-Zonaras, and the rest of the Greeks,”76

1.5.2.2.2. Conceptual Alteration.

If the orientalists find some chance to mold the concept of some Ḥadīth to their motive, they spend no time in doing this. Here is an

instance of the ḥadīth. Goldziher and Guillaume cite the following ḥadīth from Tirmidhī:

Ibn Ūmar narrated that Muhammad ordered all dogs to be killed save sheep-dogs and hounds. Abū Hurayrah added the words au Zar‘in (or field dogs). whereupon Ibn ‘Umar makes the remark that Abū Hurayrah owned cultivated land.77

Muslim circles explain Ibn ‘Umar’s remarks in a very logical and simple way that Abū Hurairah , having possessed the personal experience of the subject matter of this habit, was in a better position to know exactly what its wording and meaning was. But Guillaume and Goldziher give it very different and sceptitc meaning. Goldziher takes this tradition just because of Ibn ‘Umar’s remarks. His explanation of this hadith will show that how actively he has changed the meaning of Ibn ‘Umar’s remarks that he had said in a so simple and positive way.

Goldziher writes:

“The possibilities which the Muslim admit themselves in this field are evident from a tradition in which the authorities seem to give away the secret quite unconsciously: ‘The Prophet,’ it says in a tradition in al- Bukhārī, ‘gave the order to kill all dogs except hunting and sheep-dogs.’ ‘Umar’s son was told that Abū Hurayra also hands down the word ‘but with the exception of farm dogs as well. ‘Umar’s son says to this: ‘Abū Hurayra owns cornfield,’i.e. he has a vested interest in handing down the order with the addition that farm dogs should be spared as well. This remark of Ibn ‘Umar is characteristic of the doubt about the good faith of the transmitters that existed in the earliest period of the formation of tradition.7

1.6 Muslim Scholars’ Role in Reply to the Orientalism.

i. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was the first person in Sub-continent who took the inniative to Defend sīrah and ḥadīth of the Holy Prophet in his work ‘A Series of Essays on the Life Muḥammad’ in reply to William Muir’s ‘The Life of Mahomet’ in the nineteenth century in which Muir pointed out various questions about the early and later life, His pedigree, His authority as a Prophet, the Divinity of the Holy Qur’ān,

authority and authenticity of the Muhammadan traditions and the other teachings of Islam. Sir Syed, in his reply to Muir expressed his devotion to Islam and its Prophet by writing twelve lectures. Three of them concerned with, Islamic Literature, as theological literature, the Holy Qur’ān and Muhammadan traditions.In his essay on Muhammadan traditions, he has tried his best to defend the aḥadīth of the Holy Prophet from Muir’s allegations, during his defence of ḥadīth he adopted his own way that was not appreciated by the traditionists. Because he rejected instead of verifying the aḥādīth on which Muir and other orientalists based their objections. Anyhow inspite of some of the weaknesses, it was quite a new and impressive fase of methodology for the Muslim scholars of Sub-continent. Use of logic and the positive opinions of other reasonable orientalists impressed me a lot. ii. Shiblī Naumanī, a much learned contemporary of Sir Syed, in his Remarkable work “ sīrat al-Nabī” , has also taken the orientalists’ research methodology andopinions about the teachings and the Prophet of Islam into logical accountability. He distributed the orientalists into three catagories according to their modes of thinking about Islam. iii. Dr. Muhammad Ḥamīdullah, an Imām and mujaddid of ‘ulūm al-sīrah according to Dr. Maḥmūd Aḥmad Ghāzī. He discovered and defended the authenticity of Ṣaḥīfa Ḥammām b. Munabbih and published it with his explanatory notes.He stayed in France for a long time and devoted the rest of his life in producing numerous books and articles for the defence of Islamic teachings in Urdu, French and English languages. iv. Dr. M. Mustafa Sibai‘ is one of the prominent scholars of hadith studies. He, in his work “Al- Sunnah Wa Makanatuha fi – at-Tashrī‘ Al Islamī”, has discussed orientalists’ views about the Holy Prophet’s sunnah.He distributed his book into four chapters and the biographical introduction of Imam Abu Hanīfa and Imam Malik B. Anas. Throughout the work, he has briefly discussed and refuted the views of anti tradition forces like orientalists and the other deniers of the authority of hadith as a second source of Islamic law.He defended the hadith

literature against the following allegations raised by Ahmad Amin and Abu Rayya: • Hadith was the result of the changing circumstances of the early Muslim community. • The Umayyads ordered and encouraged the forgery in hadith. For this, they used Zuhrī as resource person. • Abu Huraia invented ahadith. Mustafa Sibai‘ highlighted and refuted many of such objections of orientalists after the confirmation through his meetings with orientalists. v. Justice Pīr KaramShah al-Azhary is also a contemporary scholar who also wrote a good number of famous publications.In chapter VI and VII of ‘Zia un Nabi’, he has discussed the history, objectives and research methodological approaches of orientalists. Chapet VII answers the questions, raised by the orientalists, on hadith and sirah of the Holy Prophet.

vi. Prof. Zafar Ali Qureshi is a well known name in the Islamic scholarship. He wrote “Prophet Muhammad and His Western Critics” in two volumes in which he has refuted Mantgumary Watt and other orientalists’ allegations on the sirah of Holy Prophet. He has nullified orientalists’ objections in a very comprehensive way. vii. Maryam Jamila, as a keen observer of Western approaches to Islam, has dealt with Western writers’ theories about different issues in a very logical manner. Her writing “Islam and Orientalism” is highly appreciated in the men of letters. viii. M. Mustafa Azami, highly appreciated by the Muslim scholars of hadith, is also a contemporary Islamist. He has produced thefollowing reknowned works on ḥadīth literature: (a) ‘Studies in early hadith literature’ is hisPhD Thesis in which he has given the complete details (from the times of Holy Prophet to six classical works on hadith) of the Sahifas written by the early Muslim community. (b) He wrote a book entitled “On Schacht’s Origins of Muhammad Jurisprudence” in reply to Schacht’s writing “Origings of Muhammadan Jurisprudence”. This workconsists of eight chapters:

The following facts havebeen discussed and proved in this work as well:

• Role of the Holy Prophet in the making of Islamic law. • Introduction to Sunnah and Its place in Islamic law. • Prophetic sunnah is more authoritative than the living tradition. • Authority of the sunnah of the Holy Prophet in the ancient schools of law. • The preservation and diffusion of aḥādīth through logical methodology. • Validity, authenticity, and authority of Isnad system. (c) Studies in hadith Methodology and literature.

It deals with the technical terminology of hadith like Tahammul al Ilm, recording of hadith, status of Isnad system, criticism of hadith and introduction to the earliest books on Ḥadīth. ix. Zubayr Siddiqi is also one of the prominent figures in the history of hadith literature. He, in his writing “Hadith Literatutre, Origin, Development and Special Features” In this work he has defined and presented the true image of ḥadith literature under the following topics.Introduction to hādīth, its preservation, isnad system and its authenticity.He has well advocated the cause of Islām. x. Sohaib Hassan Abdul Ghaffar also played important role in defining the hadith methodology. His thesis of M. A. entitled, “Criticism of Hadith among Muslims with reference to Sunan Ibn Maja” presented to Birmingham University, U. K.

This work consists of the following contents:

• Hadith, its origin, compilation and the sources of fabrication in which he has highlighted the reasons due to which forgery took its way into hadith literature. • Discussions on the criticism of ḥadith among Muslim scholars as well as the orientalists are also the contents of this work. • He also summarized the various rules and methods used for the criticism on hadith in the ages of Holy Prophet, the

companions, the successors upto the period of the six (6) classical collections of ḥadīth. All the above mentioned works are goodsources in English to reply the orientalists. But, in writer’s opinion, they are too less to fulfill the requirements of the present era. If, for a while, it is supposed that they are sufficient to refute the Western allegations on Islam and its teachings, then, a question arises that do these works reach upto the layman in the West to represent Islam? Obviously, the reply is “no”. For this, we have to plan to make up this deficiency.

Refrences Chapter: I

1 Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, word orientalist;7th Edition, (Oxford University Press, 2007).

2 Said, Edward, Orientalism, (Routledge and Kegan Paul London, 1978), p. 2.

3 Ibid, p.21.

4 Pirenne, Henry, A History of Europe, (George Allen and Unwin, 1939), pp.50-52.

5 Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of Roman Empire, (Every Man’s Library, New York, 1969), 6/35.

6 Southern R.W., Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages,(Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1962), p.95.

7 Ibid, p.57.

8 Ibid.

9 Bodley, R.V.C, The Messenger,(Robert Hale Limited, London, 1946), p.6.

10 Western Views, pp.4-5.

11 Montgomery Watt, Muhammad the Prophet and Statesman, (Oxford University Press, New Yark, 1981), p. 231.

12 Hitti, Philip, K., Islam a Way of life, (Oxford University Press, 1971), p.22.

13 Hourani, Albert, Islam in European Thought,(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991), p. 13.

14 Western Views, p .57.

15 Ibid. , p. 68.

16 Ibid. , p.106.

17 The Messenger, p.6.

18 Ibid. , p. 7.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Stubbe, Henry, An Account of the Rise and Progress of Mahometanism, Henry Stubbe, Editted by Mehmood Khan Shairani, Orientalia Publishers Lahore, 1975), p.206.

22 Khagga, Ferozud Dīn Shah, Ikhtilāf-e-Qirā’t aōr Naẓriya-e-Teḥrīf-e-Qur’ān, (Sheikh Zaid Islamic Center University of the Punjab, Lahore, 2006), p. 154.

23 Orientalism, pp. 17-18.

24 Ibid. , p. 17.

25 Khagga, Ferozud Dīn Shah, Ikhtilāf-e-Qirā’t aōr Naẓriya-e-Teḥrīf-e-Qur’ān, p. 154-155.

26 Dr. ‘Abdul Qādir Jallānī, p.152.

27 Hitti, Philip K. , (Islam and the West, Published by Princeton Press, 1962), p.54.

28 Ibid. , p.54.

29 Humphrey Prideaux, the True Nature of the Imposture Fully Displayed in the Life of Mahomet, 8th ed, p.38.

30 Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, (T. & T. Clark Edimburgh, 1956), 8/878.

31 Martin Kramer, The Jewish Discovery of Islam, n. d. , p.99.

32 Ibid. , p.99.

33 Goldziher, Ignaz, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, Introduction by Bernard Lewis, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1981), p. vii-xiii.

34 Ibid. , p.vii.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

37 Goldziher, Ignaz, Muslim Studies, 1/18.

38 Ibid. , p.21, 107, 109, 117, 120.

39 Patricia Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002), p.3.

4o Muslim Studies, 1/25-26.

41 Ibid. , 1/31.

42 Ibid. , 1/39.

43 Ibid. , 1/44.

44 Ibid. , 1/60.

45 Ibid. , 1/62.

46 Ibid. , 1/71.

47 Ibid. , 1/86.

48 Ibid. , 1/86.

49 Ibid. , 1/91.

50 Ibid. , 1/127.

51 Ibid. , 1/140.

52 Ibid. , 1/136.

53 Ibid. , 2/22, 182.

54 Ibid. , 2/186.

55 Ibid. , 2/25.

56 Ibid. , 2/26.

57 Ibid. , 2/31.

58 Ibid. , 2/44.

59 Ibid. , 2/44-45.

60 Ibid. , 2/47.

61 Ibid. , 2/54.

62 Ibid. , 2/90.

63 Ibid. , 2/27.

64 Islamic Theology, p.x.

65 Ibid. , p. x-xi.

66 Juynboll, G. H. A. , Muslim Tradition, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1983), p.4.

67 Muslim Studies, 2/56.

68 Guillaume, Alfred, The Traditions of Islam, (Universal Books Zulqarnain Chambers, Ganpat Road, Lahore), 1977, p.78.

69 Sir, Syed Ahmad Khan, A Series of Essays on the Life of Muhammad, (Premier Book House, Lahore, 1968), p.386.

70 Ibid. , p.386.

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid. , p.387.

73 Ibid. ,p.388.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid. , p. 388-89

76 Decline, 5/270.

77 Ḥadīth Literature; its Origins, Development and Special Features, (Suhail Academy Lahore, 2001), p.128.

78 Muslim Studies, 2/56

CHAPTER II

AUTHORITY OF ḤADĪTH& SUNNAH AS SECOND SOURCEOF ISLAMIC LAW

2.1. Introduction to Hadīth & Sunnah.

2.1.1. Meaning and Usage of the Word ‘Ḥadīth’.

The Arabic word hadīth literally means new and is used as an antonym of ‘Qadīm’, old. It also means conversation, story, talk, communication, discussion; historical or recent, religious or secular either it is related to the past, present or future. This sense to this word was given by pre-Islamic poets, Holy Qur’ān and the Holy Prophet. For example the word ‘Haddathanā’ is derived from Hadīth and means ‘ he narrated a report to us’.

Later on in the beginning of Islamic Era this word was given a new and specific direction by the Holy Qur’ān and the Holy Prophet. In this way, sayings, actions and the silence of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) upon any of his companions’ action, was named ‘hadīth’ of the Holy Prophet.

2.1.1.1. Use of the Word Ḥadīth in the Holy Qur’ān.

The Holy Qur’ān uses the word Ḥadīth in different meanings as religious communication, message and story, either historical or current. These senses of the word Ḥadīth are illustrated thus in the Holy Qur’ān.

• Religious Communication, Message or the Holy Qur’ān.

Allah Almighty indicates thus:

” ِ ِ ِ “ 1 ا هَّللُ نَ هزَل أَ ْح َس َن ا ْْلَديث كتَاًب … “Allah has sent down the best ḥadīth in the shape of a Book.”

• Historical Story.

The Holy Book explains the word Ḥadīth in this way;

” ِ “ 2 َوَه ْل أَََت َك َحدي ُث ُمو َسى “ And has there reached to you the tale of Moses? ”

• Current Story and Conversation.

” ِ ِ ِ “ 3 َوإِ ْذ أَ َسهر النهِ ُِّب إََِل بَ ْع ِض أَْزَواجه َحديثًا... “And (remember) when the Prophet opened a in front of one of his wives”

The word ḥadīth, in the previous three Qur’ānic uses literally means communication and historical or current story. When we talk

about the word ḥadīth as a term, it means the saying, action or the silent approval of the Holy Prophet (PBUH).

2.1.1.2. Prophet’s Use of the Word Ḥadīth.

Since his Prophethood, the holy Prophet used the term of Ḥadīth in this sense. Observing Abū Hurairah’s interest in His sayings, the Holy Prophet remarked that He (PBUH) knew Abū-Hurairah’s interest and anxiety about ḥadīth. 4

On some other occasion, the Holy Prophet used the word ḥadīth in the following meanings.

• Religious Communication.

The Holy Prophet says,

”إ ّن احسن الحديث كتاب هللا“ 5

“ The best ḥadīth (talk) is the book of the Almighty.”

Here the holy Prophet called the Holy Qur’ān as best ḥadīth.

• Historical Story.

The messenger of the Almighty said,

”حدثوا عن بنى اسرأيل "6

“You reportḥadīth from the Isra‘īlites.”

• Current Story, Secret or Conversation.

The Prophet of Allah Almighty relates,

"اذا حدث الرجل الرجل بالحديث ثم التفت فهى امانة"7

“When someone speaks a hadīth (a secret)then goes his way, his words become a secret”

As the orientalists always remain in search of some weak points in the Islamic literature and try to misinterpret Islam in different ways, by carrying on this tradition, Goldziher, contrary to the Muslim concept of ḥadīth, defines the word ḥadīth in this way, “The word hadith means tale, communication, not only are communications among those who have embraced the religious life called ḥadīth, but also historical information whether secular or religious and weather of times long past or of more recent events” 8

Goldziher has named the following two things as ḥadīth. i. Tale or communication of Muslims. ii. Historical information whether secular or religious.

In the first meaning, Goldziher called ḥadīth a ‘tale’ that literally means, according to the English literature, “story of the life of People” Goldziher’s this definition of ḥadīth indicates that he is not willing to accept the ḥadīth as a saying, action or the silence of the Holy Prophet upon some of his companion’s action. Because if he had admitted this he would have missed his motive of research. As his second meaning of ḥadīth is concerned, knowing the fact that ḥadith is a religious term of Islamic ritual and legal literature, that has no connection with any secular object, it would have not been associated with the word ‘secular’. Because the term ‘secular’ is considered as opposite to religion. In short, the previous discussion indicates the fact that goldziher’s passage defining ḥadīth defines his negative attitude towards Islam and its teachings.

2.1.1.3. Ṣaḥāba’s Use of the Word Ḥadīth and the Refutation of Goldziher’s Viewpoint.

Not only the Holy Qur’ān and the Holy Prophet (PBUH) but also the Prophet’s companions used the word ‘ḥadīth’ in the sense of ‘religious communication’ or ‘story’. Following are some of the examples of Ṣaḥāba’s use of the word ‘ḥadīth’.

i. ‘Utba commented that Ibn-Abbās narrated only two or three ḥadīths in one month. 9

At this time he had the Prophetic ḥadīth in his mind which shows the reality that the word ḥadīth was used in Ṣahaba’s time in the same sense in which Qur’ān and Ḥadīth have defined.

ii. ‘Umar b Al-khattāb also meant the Prophetic ḥadīth when he (R.A.) asked his fellows not to relate too many ḥadīths. 10

iii. On an other occasion, Ali (R.A.) instructed the community about the carefulness in relating aḥādīth by saying: “When you write the hadīth write it with Isnād” 11

In this advice Alī (R.A.) was asking the early Muslim community to be careful while writing or reporting the ḥadīths of the Holy Prophet.

In the previous pages, we have presented the meaning and concept of ḥadīth as described by Qur’ān,Ḥadīth and the early Muslim community and the orientalists. When we see the Islamic and orientalists’ concept of ḥadīth comparatively, we see that the concept described by the orientalists does not match the original sense of the word ḥadīth in which it is used in either previous or current Islamic literature. This is so because the orientalists take the word just in literal sense and try to illustrate it in the same way instead of taking it as a term used in Muslim theological literature. Keeping the orientalists’ mistake in view, they are suggested to review the attitude of early Muslim community towards the concept and use of hadith to understand the true nature of the Prophetic ḥadīth.

2.1.2.Meaning and Use of the Word Sunnah.

The word ‘sunnah’, literally means precedent, custom, rule, mode, manner of acting or a conduct of life. 12

This word has been used in Muslim as well as pre-Islamic poetry in the same concept. The poet farazdaq has explained it in his poetry in these words,

”فجاءبسنة العمرين فيها شفاءللصدورمن السقام“ 13

“He took the sunnah of Abū-bakar and ‘Umar which is the cure for the hearts from the illness.”

The poet Khalid al-Hudhaili remarks:

”فال تجرعن من سنة انت سرتها فاول راض من يسيرها“ 14

“ Do not be worried and of a custom that you have adopted, because the first who isacts upon a way just like the person who founded it.”

2.1.2.1. Use of the Word Sunnah in the Holy Qur’ān.

Allah Almighty says,

” ِ هِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ “ 15 ُسنهةَ ا هَّلل ِِف الذي َن َخلَْوا م ْن قَ بْلُ َولَ ْن ََت َد ل ُسنهة ا هَّلل تَ بْديًل “It was the habit of the Almighty in the matter of thosepeople who gone away; and you will find no varience in the habit of the Lord.”

In an other verse of the Holy Qur’ān Allah Almighty says:

”قُ ْل ِل َّل ِذي َن َك َف ُروا إِ ْن يَ ْنتَ ُهوا يُ ْغ َف ْر َل ُه ْم َما َق ْد َس َل َف َوإِ ْن يَع ُودُوا َف َق ْد َم َض ْت ُس َّن ُت ا ْْلَ َّو ِلي َن “ 16

“Tell those who do not believer, if they return from evil, their previous actions will be ignored. But if they again disbelieve, then the instances of the punished earlier have already been displayed.”

2.1.2.2. Use of the Word Sunnah as Conduct of Life in Ḥadīth.

In many aḥadīth the Holy Prophet has used the word ‘sunnah’ as his way of life and as a role model for Muslims. Once in his advice to the Muslims he said,

ِ ِ ُّ ِِ ِ ِ ِِِ 17 " تَ َرْك ُت في ُك ْم أَْمَريْ ِن ، لَ ْن تَضلوا َما ََتَ هس ْكتُ ْم ِب َما: كتَا َب ا هَّلل َو ُسنهةَ نَبي ه" “I have left for you two guidelines; you shall not go astray as long as you adopt them: Book of Allah and sunnah of his Messenger.”

This ḥadīth of the Holy Prophet clearly claims that the word sunnah, as a term, stands for the conduct of life approved by the Holy Prophet. On some occasion, some of the desert people came to the Holy Messenger. He saw them in a worried mode&advised His followers to sport them financially so that they may live a bit easy life. But the followers (R.A.) looked not ready to act uponHis advice. While observing the signs of anger on the face of the Holy Prophet a companion from the AnṢār helped them with silver. Other Muslim community acted like him to help the sad people of the desert until the signs of pleasure appeared on the face of the Messenger. Then the Messenger said:

" َم ْن َس َّن فِي ا ْ ِْل ْس ََل ِم ُس َّنةً َح َسنَةً، َفعُ ِم َل بِ َها َب ْعدَهُ، ُك ِت َب َلهُ ِم ْث ُل أَ ْج ِر َم ْن َع ِم َل بِ َها، َو ََل َي ْنقُ ُص ِم ْن أُ ُجو ِر ِه ْم َش ْي ٌء، َو َم ْن َس َّن فِي ا ْ ِْل ْس ََل ِم ُس َّنةً َسي ِئَةً، َفعُ ِم َل بِ َها َب ْعدَهُ، ُك ِت َب َع َل ْي ِه ِم ْث ُل ِو ْز ِر َم ْن َع ِم َل بِ َها، َو ََل َي ْن قُ ُص ِم ْن أَ ْو َزا ِر ِه ْم َش ْيء"18

“He who establishes a praised sunnah (good practice) in Islam which people follow after him, will be given a reward like that of those who follow it after him, without their rewards being lessened in any case. And he who sets up an evil sunnah in Islam which is people follow after him, will bear the burden equal to that of those who follow this without theirs being lessened a little.”

All the statements mentioned earlier confirm that the word sunnah has been taken in its literary meaning. This last hadith implies that if a person having some social status and consciously originates some good or evil action, Then people follow it, it is considered his sunnah. In this way, we have seen that the word sunnah has been in use from the pre-Islamic era with the following meanings: way, mode, law, tradition or custom and conduct of life. The term and concept “sunnah of the prophet” was taken in use in the life of the Holy Messenger of Allah when the God of gods commanded the Muslims to follow the practice of the Holy Messenger considering his life-style as a role model for their practical lives. The word sunnah as a term, as we have already

57 discussed briefly and shall explain it in detail in the upcoming pages, was also used by the Holy Prophet himself.

General Sunna and the Sunah of the Holy Prophet were some times differentiated by the Arabic article (al). This definite article (al) was used before the sunnah of the Prophet while on the other hand its general use without the article ‘al’ continued for the Sunnah of other people. With the passage of time the term identified with the sunnah of the messenger of the Almighty. In the end of the second century it was used in legal books in the meenings of norms founded by the Messenger of Allah deduced from his attitude and the tradition.

2.1.2.3. The Early Versus Later Concept of The Term Sunnah, and the Orientalists.

After presenting the literal meanings and different usage of the word sunnah, let us now present another debate about the early concept of Sunnah and the Prophetic sunnah between Islamic schools and the Orientalists.

Several Western scholars express that the Prophetic sunnah is no more than a second name of the term sunnah common in pre-Islamic Arabia. Their viewpoint of the early sunnah is expressed by Fazlur Rahman “According to the view dominant among more recent Western scholars, sunnah denotes the actual practice which, through being long established over successive generations, gains the status of formativeness and becomes Sunnah”19

Goldziher states that the word sunnah was basically a pagan term that stood for the standard of pious deeds in communal life which was received by Islam and was given a new definition. He points out in these remarks:

“The concept of the sunna was from the beginning influential as the standard of correctitude in the ordering of individual and communal life in those Arab communities which from the appearance of Islam embraced a way of life and order of society in accordance with Islamic religious beliefs.

There was no need for Muslims to invent this concept and its practical significance; they were already current among the old pagans of the Jahiliyya. For them sunna was all that corresponded to the traditions of the Arabs and the customs and habits of their ancestors, and in this sense the word was still used in Islamic times by those Arab communities which had been only very little affected by Muslim religion. Under Islam the content of the old concept and the meaning of the word that corresponded to it underwent a change. To the pious followers of Muhammed and his oldest communities sunna meant all that could be shown to have been the practices of the Prophet and his earliest followers. The Muslim community was supposed to honour and obey the new sunna in the same way as the pagan Arabs had revered the sunna of their ancestors. The Islamic concept of sunna is a revised statement of ancient Arab views” 20

Goldziher’s statement that ‘sunna was basically a pagan concept and was later on adopted by Islam’ has no educational basis and shows the ignorance of the writer of the theological history of Islam. It is out of question that Qur’ān itself has used the word ‘sunnah’ as ‘way’ or ‘method’. The Almighty says:

ِ هِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ 21 ُسنهةَ ا هَّلل ِِف الذي َن َخلَْوا م ْن قَ بْلُ َولَ ْن ََت َد ل ُسنهة ا هَّلل تَ بْديًل “It was the habit of the Almighty in the matter of thosepeople who gone away; and you will find no varience in the habit of the Lord.”

“A mode of action Allah has long pursued in dealing with those who came to this world before you and you shall not find a change in His mode of action.”

This verse of the Holy Qur’ān clearly defines that use of the word ‘sunnah’ has its origin in Islam and is being used by the Almighty long before the time of the Holy Prophet. Let us now take into consideration the views of Schacht and Margoliouth about the origin, early and later concept of the sunnah.

2.1.2.4. Critical Study of Schacht’s Concept of the Early Sunnah.

Shacht holds the following views about the concept of early sunnah. • According to Schacht’s theory, the word sunnah was an historical communal concept of the Arabs and the Iraqiyans gave it shape of ‘sunnah of the Messenger’ In the end of the first century after hijrah. He says: “ Sunna in its Islamic context originally had a political rather than a legal connotation; it referred to the policy and administration of the caliph. The question whether the administrative acts of the first two caliphs, Abū Bakr and ‘Umar, should be regarded as binding precedents, arose probably at the time when a successor to ‘Umar had to be appointed (23/644), and the discontent with the policy of the third caliph, ‘Uthmān, which led to his assassination in 35/655, took the form of a charge that he, in his turn, had diverged from the policy of his predicessores and, implicitly, from the Koran. In this connexion, there appeared the concept of the ‘sunna of the Prophet,’ not yet identified with any set of positive rulers but providing a doctrinal link between the ‘sunna of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar’ and the Koran. The earliest, certainly authentic, evidence for this use of the term ‘sunna of the Prophet’ is the letter addressed by the Khariji leader ‘Abdu-llah ibn Ibad to the Umayyad caliph ‘Abd al-Malik about 76/695. The same term with a theological connotation, and coupled with the ‘example of the forebears,’ occurs in the contemporary treatise which Ḥasan al-BaṢrī addressed to the same caliph. It was introduced into the theory of Islamic law, presumably towards the end of the first century, by the scholars of Iraq.”22

• The early concept of sunnah was that of customary agreed upon practice, he calls this practice ‘living sunnah’. It does not mean the sunnah of the Prophet. This living tradition was projected back into the mouth of the Prophet. 23 He has taken this concept from D.S. Margoliouth details of which are being given in the coming lines.

2.1.2.5. Concept of Sunnah as Described by Schacht and Margoliouth.

Schacht has borrowed some of his views from Margoliouth who has explained the word Sunnah by presenting its numerous usages. In the coming lines by presenting Margolouth’s usages of the word sunnah, we shall try our best to present margoliouth's view about sunnah in its actual sense and the real meaning of the word sunnah in the early Islamic scholarly view’s about hadīth. Schacht writes that Margoliouth has concluded that sunnah as a rule of law meant basically the examplary or normative usage done by the community and later acquired the restricted meaning of the precedents set by the Holy Prophet.24

Here, we shall present the original passage from Margoliouth’s book to draw a precise conclusion. Margoliouth writes thus.

“The process whereby “the beaten track,” “precedent,” or “custom” comes to mean the precedent set by the Prophet is just traceable in the stories which survive from the early days of Islam, most of them indeed somewhat coloured by later ideas and usage. Sometimes the practice is defined as “past practice” or as “known practice” opposed to innovation, or as good practice opposed to bad practice, or as order opposed to disorder. Sometimes the “practices” are mentioned without further definition, but at times they are ascribed to God, to the Moslems, to Islam, to the first two caliphs, or the Prophet.; at times they are even mentioned as something over and above the practice of the Prophet; In a manifesto ascribed to Alī, it is asserted that Allah taught the Arabs by Mohammed no fewer than four things – the Book, the wisdom, the ordinances, and the practice” 25

Let us now draw our attention to Margoliouth’s various usages of the term sunnah and see whether the deductions made by them are reasonable or absurd. Here the original sources, from which Margoliouth has taken these references, are being presented so that we may draw a precise conclusion about Margoliouth and Schacht’s deductions.

• Known Practice as Opposed to Innovation. a. Conversation Between ‘Ali and ‘Uthmān in 34 A.H. "فاقام سنة معلومة وأمات بدعة متروكة"26

“He established the known sunnah, and finished abandond innovation.” b. Talhah’s talk about the War Against ‘Alī in 36 A.H. "هذا أمرلم يكن قبل اليوم فينزل فيه القرآن أو يكون فيه من رسول هللا صلي هللا عليه وسلم سنة." 27 “This is a matter which did not happen before such, that a revelation in the Qur’ān might have revealed about it, or that there might have been some precedent in the traditions of the Messenged.” c. Ashtar’s statement. "هؤالء القوم ال يقاتلونكم إال عن دينكم ليميتوا السنة ويحيوا البدعة ‘ ويعيدوكم فى ضاللة"28 “Those people do not fight you but regarding your (religion) the sunnah (norms) and allow innovation to flourish and push you back in error and misguidance.” d. Husain’s saying to the Basrite in 60 A.H. " بعثت رسولى اليكم وأنا أدعوكم إلى كتاب هللا وسنة نبيه"29 “I have sent my representative to you, and I invite you to Allah’s book and His Messenger’s way.” e. Conversation of Suwaid with Mutarrif in 77 A.H. "وأن ندعوهم إلى كتاب هللا وسنة نبيه"30 “Whatever the case be, we invite them only towards Allah’s book and His Prophet’s sunnah.”

• Past Practice. Speech of ‘Alī in 37 A.H., after the incident of arbitration. "فحكما بغير حجة بينة وال سنة ماضية"31 “They decided without any definite evidence or any early precedent from the way of the Messenger.”

• Good Practice, as Opposed to Bad Practice. The letter of ‘Uthmān to Maccan in 35 A.H.

"والسنة الحسنة التى استن بها رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم والخليفتان من بعده..." 32

“The good way initiated by the Prophet and the two Caliphs after him.”

• Order, as Opposed to Disorder. Used in 64 A.H. "يأمر الناس بالسنة وينهى عن الفتنة." 33 “He asked the public to live according to the way of the Prophet and forbids them from sedition.” • Practice, besides Further Definition.

The argument of ‘Alī against al-Khirit when he disagreed with the arbitration of ‘Ali and wanted to leave ‘Ali in 38 A.H.

"هلم أدارسك الكتاب وأناظرك فى السنن"34 “Come here and let me teach you Allah’s messege and quarral with you about the Prophetic way.”

• The Advice of Muhallab to his Sons in 82 A.H. "عليكم بقراءة القرآن وتعلم السنن وآداب الصالحين." 35 “You are enjoined to recite the Qur’ān and to learn the sunnah and the manners of the upright people.”

• Ascribed to God, the Muslims, Islam. سنة هللاa. A Law of Allah (38 A.H) 36

سنة المسلمينConduct of Muslims (36A.H) 37

سنة االسالمb. Norms of Islam (34A.H) 38 • Practice of the Prophet and the First two Caliphs Taken into Use in 35 A.H. "السنة الحسنة التى استن بها رسول هللا والخليفتان من بعده." 39 “The good norms [sunnah] which has been acted upon by the Prophet and the two Caliphs after him.” • Something over and Above the Practice of the Prophet (a Conversation of Zaid b.’Alī in 122 A.H.) "انما ندعوكم لكتاب هللا وسنة نبيه ‘ وإلى أن السنن أن تحيى وإلى البدع أن تطفأ"40 “We call you to the book of Allah and the sunnah of his Prophet, and to cause the sunnah to flourish and to cause innovation to be extinguished.”

• Practice Taught by the Prophet. Muhammad taught them practice, as it is described in a letter ascribed to ‘Ali in 36 A.H.

"فعلمهم الكتاب والحكمة والفرائض والسنن... ثم ان المسلمين استخلفوا به أمرين صالحين عمال بالكتاب والسنة وأحسنا السيرة و لم يعدوا السنة أال وان لكم علينا العمل بكتاب هللا وسنة رسوله"41 “Then he taught them the book, the wisdom, obligatory deeds and commendable deeds (sunnah). Later on, the Muslim community appointed as successors two pious rulers who acted according to the book of Allah and the sunna (of the Prophet), whose conduct was excellent, and who did not deviate from the sunna. Indeed, it is your right over us that we act according to the book of Allah and the sunna of his Prophet.” • Practice from the Qur’ān.

In a letter, 129 A.H., by the founder of the Abbasids.

"إن هللا تعالى نزل عليه كتابه ‘ أحل فيه حالله وحرم فيه حرامه وشرع فيه شرائعه وسنن فيه سننه"42 “Allah revealed His book to Him, made lawful in it what is lawful and prohibited what is forbidden. He set forth in it his various laws (shara’i’) and established through it his sunna.”

After writing all these references, Margoliouth concludes that “the practice of the Prophet in these stories is far commoner than any other phrase. The context in which these expressions are most frequently used is in reference to the third caliph, ‘Uthman, whose conduct was supposed to differ seriously from that of his predecessors; though the charges formulated against him are always somewhat vague. It seems clear that the second source of law was not yet anything quite definite, but merely what was customary, and had the approval of person of authority, all of whom presentlymerged in the prophet.”43

In his conclusion, Margoliouth has presented several statements. Three of these statements are directly relevant to the subject of sunnah and are extremely contradicting the real sense of the references. Now we take two statements for investigatory analysis.

A. The practice of the Prophet in these stories is far commoner than any other phrase. The context in which these expressions are most frequently used is in reference to the third caliph ‘Uthmān,.

Margoliouth maintains that in all these references the practice of the Prophet is common like other contents rather than prominent. But, on the contrary, we see and observe clearly that all these references or stories

64 referred by Margoliouth spin around the sunnah (practice) of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Its living proof are the very five references noted by Margoliouth in which the word ‘sunnah of the Prophet’ is used directly. For reader’s facility, these references are rewritten here.

i. Saying of Talhah about the War Against ‘Alī in 36 A.H. "هذا أمرلم يكن قبل اليوم فينزل فيه القرآن أو يكون فيه من رسول هللا صلي هللا عليه وسلم سنة." 44

ii. Husain’s Saying to the Basrite in 60 A.H.

"بعث رسولى اليكم وأنا أدعوكم إلى كتاب هللا وسنة نبيه"45 iii. Conversation of Suwaid with Mutarrif in 77 A.H. "وأن ندعوهم إلى كتابب هللا وسنة نبيه"46 iv. Something over and above the Practice of the Prophet (a Conversation of Zaid b. ‘Alī in 122 A.H.) "انما ندعوكم لكتاب هللا وسنة نبيه ‘ وإلى أن السنن أن تحيى وإلى البدع أن تطفأ"47 v. Practice Taught by the Prophet.

Muhammad taught them practice, as it is described in a letter ascribed to ‘Ali in 36 A.H.

In each of above mentioned refrences quoted by Margoliouth, ‘sunnah of the Prophet’ is mentioned clearly. Then, inspite of these clear evidences, Margoliouth’s conclusion seemsvery strange and baseless.

As well as the rest of the references are concerned, most of them indirectly indicate the sunnah of the Holy Prophet. Because in the historical era in which these statements are spoken by the community, it was common in the community that whenever they used the definite Arabic article (al) before the word sunna, by this they meant the ‘sunnah of the Holy Prophet'. Another aspect of this debate is that the word Al- ,(بدعةةةة ) sunnah or Sunnah of the Prophet is opposite to innovation and is conformly meant the sunnah of the Prophet (ضةةةة ) misguidance when used with the words Al-kitab, or Al-Qur’ān. We can see that in some of these references the word sunnah is used opposite to innovation and misguidance and attached with Al-kitab and Al-Qur’ān. It is obvious

65 now that the practice (sunnah) of the Holy Prophet is the most prominent element in the references rather than any other phrase as claimed by Margoliouth and Schacht. It is also clear that the word sunnah (of Prophet) circulates around almost all these references while the name of Uthmān bin ‘Affan, the third rightly guided caliph, is used just once in all these statements. So, Margoliouth’s statement regarding the link between ‘Uthmān and these references can never be justified.

B. It seems clear that the second source of Islamic law was not yet anything quite definite, but merely what was customary.

Margoliouth has also claimed that, in the references pointed by him, the concept of second source of Islamic law (sunnah of the Holy Prophet) is not clear and definite but it is a compound of customary practice and the early sunnah. After reading the references, an impartial and reasonable reader cannot accept the assumptions and conclusions about the sunnah of the Prophet deduced by Margoliouth. Because most of these references directly or indirectly highlight the authority and authenticity of the Prophetic sunnah while Margoliouth is not ready to admit it. Margoliouth would have asked himself a question, if he were impartial about the Islamic literature and its sources of law, thatIf the sunnah of the Prophet was not defined early, would the early personalities have asked the others to follow the “sunnah of the Prophet” or promise to live their lives in accordance to it? Most of the referred documents, and talks clearly show and confirm that the definite personal practice of the Prophet is being discussed here and not a common activity of the community.

Another aspect of these references is very strange and unbelievable. That is Schacht’s reliance on the assumtions of Margoliouth. Inspite of the fact that most of the references quoted by Margoliouth are originally dated from the first half of the first century. If Schacht has admitted Margoliouth’s references as true and authentic, he would have to accept the reality that the term and expression ‘Sunnah of the Prophet’ was used on a large scale a hundred years ago before he contented it was”. Because If the sunnah of the Prophet was not defined early, would the early personalities have asked the others to follow the “sunnah of the Prophet” or promise to live their lives in accordance to it?

Not only the sound reason and history refute Margoliouth and Schacht’s conclusions but the impartial and reasonable orientalist’s also reject them because these are really against the real evidences of the authentic history of Islamic legal theory. As the great orientalist M. M. Bravmann refutes Margoliouth’s perceptions. He comments in these words: “D. S. Margoliouth in his book The early development of Mohamadanism (London 1926), p. 70, assumes that “the practice of the Prophet”, which in the early times is most frequently written regarding ‘Uthman’ was not yet quite definite. But merely what was customary” that is: “The practice of the Muslims, or of the community…..with respect to this theory it should be concluded that the specific term Sirat Rasuli-llah which is mentioned in uthman’s oath of office (in Albaladuri’s report) for the practice and the procedure of the Prophet makes it perfectly clear that what is meant by the expression ‘the practice of the Prophet’ is the specific, personal practice of the Prophet himself and not the practice of the community. And it is the adherence to the personal practice of the Prophet, Sirat Rasuli-llah,that is specifically demanded from the candidate to be elected as ‘Umer’s successor. Obviously, the adherence to the law of the Qur’ān was a more or less self-understood duty for anyone aspiring to that office, or, for that matter, for any believer. It is evident that the Prophet had his specific, personal practice (consisting of concrete, single practices, procedures, which no less than the practice indicated in the Qur’ān, could, of course, in part have roots in earlier practices…) But it is important fact that the adherence to the personal practice of the Prophet was, in connection with the election of ‘Umar’s successor, declared to constitute a basic principle.”49

On another occasion, Bravmann notes several references to show that the term ‘Sirat Rasuli-llah’, that was required from Uthmān to follow it, is equivalent to the term sunnat Rasuli-llah. After writing several passages he says: “Passages of this type establish the identity of sirah and sunnah. We may also refer to the following passage where sunnah wa sirah is mentioned with respect to ‘Umar b. al-Khattāb (Tabari, Annales, I, 2680, 7): Wakana min sunnati ‘Umara wa siratihi an ya’huda ‘ummalahu bimuwafati l-haggi fi kulli sanatin lis-siyasati… In all of these passages sirah is used as an equivalent of sunnah; and the use of these two equivalent terms In a single phrase is nothing but a stylistic device. Sunnatu Rasuli-llahi wa siratuhu, e.g., means: “the practice and

67 the procedure of the Prophet”, but not “the practice (sunnah) and the life-history (sirah) of the Prophet”. 50

2.1.2.6. Ibn al-Muqaffa’s Concept of Sunnah and Schacht’s Deductions from it.

Schacht describes that Ibn al-Muqaffa, a secretary of state in late Umayyad and early Abbasid times, realized that sunnah as it was understood in his life-time, was not based on authentic precedents laid down by the Holy Messenger and his early successors, but to a great extent on administrative regulations of the Umaiyyad government. Unlike Shāfi‘ī, however he did not rely on hadith’s of the Prophet but deduced that the caliph was free to fix and codify the alleged sunnah. 51

M. M. A‘zamī refutes Schacht’s this assumption by presenting the original statement of Ibn al-Muqaffah. He writes: “Leaving aside the fact that Ibn al-Muqaffa was neither a lawyer nor a theologian but an anti-Umayyad, indeed, charged with heresy, 52 it is simply not the case that he regarded the Caliph as free to fix and codify the alleged sunnah.”53

He describes the role of the caliph in these words.

"فأما إثباتنالإلمام الطاعة فيما ال يطاع فيه غيره فان ذلك في الرأى والتدبير واألمر الذى جعل هللا أزمنته وعراه بايدى االئمة ‘ ليس الحد فيه أمر وال طاعة من غزو والقفول والجمع والقسم واالستعمال والترك والحكم بالرأى فيما لم يكن فيه أثر ‘ وامضاء الحد ود واألحكام على الكتاب والسنة."54

“In so far as our confirmation is concerned of obedience to the Imam [the ruler] in matters which none else ought to be obeyed, it pertains only to matters of ra’y [personal opinion] and of planning (tadbīr) and to those matters which God has placed under the authority of the Imams. No one else has the right to command or to be obeyed as regards setting out on or returning from combat, gathering and dividing troops, appointing and dismissing governors, and giving judgment on the basis of ra’y [personal opinion] in matters for which there are no traditions (āthar) or in discharging punishments or ruling in accordance with the book [of God] and the sunnah.”

He concludes his observation about Ibn al-Muqaffa’s ‘Risala’ : If the Ibn al-Muqaffa’s Risala fi aṢ-Ṣaḥabā is taken as a whole, it is evident that in his opinion, the caliph is bound to act according to the Qur’ān and the sunnah.And, anything, for which there is no precedent from the time of the Prophet or the rightly guided caliphs cannot be considered sunnah. Moreover, the caliph is responsible making arrangements to teach the Qur’ān and the sunnah to the people, for promulgating a law book based on the sunnah and Qiyās, and for punishing offenders according to the Qur’ān and the sunnah. 55

He argues further about Ibn al-Muqaffa’s views about the authority of ḥadīth. He writes:

“Not only does Ibn al-Muqaffa, give no indication that caliph is free to fix the ‘alleged sunnah’ but on the contrary he maintains that caliph is bound to follow which Qur’ān and the sunnah consist. Moreover, his views are specifically concerned with legal matters.That is why, it is very difficult to admit Schacht’s assumption that in the first century law was not based on the Qur’ān and sunnah” .(56)

2.1.3. The Authority of Living Sunnah Versus that of Prophetic Sunnah and the Orientalists.

All legal, political, social and religious institutions were founded and developed in Madina under the supervision of the Holy Prophet. Because all the legislation regarding all the fields was put into practice first in Madina in front of the eyes of the madenese Community, therefore, the community of Madina availed first chance to observe all these activities in their daily life. Thus the early practice which started during the life-time of the Holy Prophet in Madina deserve the significance of transmitting the rules of Qur’ān and Sunnah of the Prophet through constant activity from generation to generation. It is the main and valid reason because of which the madinese generally used to give preference to the general and wellknown practice of the madinese community. On the report transmitted by a single transmitter,some practices of madinese were originated in the life-time of the Holy Prophet while there were also some other practices which came into existence later, neither in Prophet’s life nor in the regimes of rightly

69 guided caliphs. But these practices came into being either in the late first or in the second century. These are said al-amal al-muta’ākhir (the late practice) or al-amal al-Istidlali (practice based on legal deductions). Inspite of the proof of the existence of these practices in Madinah, it cannot be claimed that these latter practices were given preference on the Sunnah of the Prophet unanimously by the learned Hadīth specialists of that time. But it is evident that throughout the legal history of Islam there came no era when the ‘sunnah of the Prophet’ was ignored.

On the contrary, the Orientalist’s claim, time and again, that in the early period of Islam, the legist’s like Malik, Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and others had given preference to the sunnah of the community upon the sunnah of the Holy Prophet. In this regard they maintain the following claims.

• The practice existed before the traditions from the Prophet and companions. • The Madinise preferred practice on the Prophetic traditions. • Practice was falsely ascribed to early authorities to bring about change.

Now we turn our attention towards all these assumptions of the Orientalist’s and try our best to draw and present the clear picture of the authority of the Prophetic sunnah.

Let us take the first allegation into deep analysis.

2.1.3.1. The practice Existed before the Traditions from the Prophet and Companions.

Schacht states on this topic that the practice of community existed earlier than the traditions from the Holy Prophet and the companions. He says that it is clearly written in Mudawwana al-kubra iv- 28, where, according to Schacht, Ibn Qāsim gives a theoretical justification of the medinese point of view. He writes Ibn Qāsim’s observation in these words.57

“This tradition has come down to us, and if it were accompanied by a practice passed to those from whom we have taken it over by their own predecessors, it would be right to follow it. But in fact it is like those

70 other traditions which are not accompanied by practice. [Here Ibn Qāsim gives examples of traditions from the Prophet and from companions.] But these things could not assert themselves and take root (Lam tashtadd wa-lam taqwa), the practice was different, and the whole community and the companions themselves acted on other rules. So the traditions remained neither discredited [in principle] nor adopted in practice (ghair mukadhdhab bih wa-la ma‘mul bih), and actions were ruled by other traditions which were accompanied by practice. These traditions were passed on from the companions to the successors, and from these to those after them, without rejecting or casting doubt on others that have come down and have been transmitted. But what was eliminated from practice is left aside and not regarded as authoritative, and only what is corroborated by practice is followed and so regarded. Now the rule which is well established and is accompanied by practice is expressed in the words of the Prophet. . . and the words of Ibn ‘Umar to the same effect….” 58

In foot notes on the same page, he writes more “This lip-service paid to traditions shows the influence they had gained in the time of ibn- Qāsim and it deserves to be noted that ibn-Qāsim relies on practice although he might have simply referred to the tradition from the Prophet”. 59

Having studied Schacht’s all statements in a little depth, it seems evident that Schacht mostly choses passages to support his hypothesis but which not only do not help him to support his views but oftenly they fit in contrast to his assumptions. Ibn Qāsim, in his whole discussion build and support the theory that there are two types of traditions transmitted by a single narrator which are relevant to the authority of the Prophet. One of them is the group of traditions that is accompanied by the practices of the companions and successors. The other one is the group of traditions that lacks the company of practice. If these two types of traditions contradict each other the traditions accompanied by practice will be adopted on the basis of their company with practice as a supporting element. He further says that the traditions resembling the practice of the community will be adopted.

In the light of these statements from Ibn Qāsim, how is it possible to deduce that he paid ‘lip-service’ to the tradition.

And how it is proper for Schacht to deduce that Ibn Qāsim relies on practice rather than on the tradition when he has clearly referred to the tradition from the Prophet to be adopted. The reality is that Schacht has committed mistake again in understanding the real picture of the authority of tradition from the Holy Prophet. Because neither Ibn Qāsim said that practice of the community would be preferred upon the sunnah of the Holy Prophet nor he said that practice of the early community existed first and Prophetic traditions came into being later.

2.1.3.2. The Madinese Preferred Practice of the Community on Prophetic Tradition

Most of the hadith critic orientalist’s maintain that in the early period of Islamic legal history, Early Muslim community especially the madinese, used to give preference to the known practice of the society rather than the sunnah of the Holy Prophet. In the same way juynboll states that Muhammad, (d.132/749) a Qādī in Madinah, spoken a statement on the basis of agreed upon practice of the people of Madina rather than on the basis of the hadīth of the Prophet. And considered this practice more binding (aqwa) than the Prophetic ḥadīth.60

Unfortunatly, it is very common in the research methodology of the Orientalist’s that while taking a part of a passage from the literature for evidence, they take and observe the very part or passage that is relevant to their purpose. Even some times they read a sentence and, after the observation, they find that one phrase of the sentence makes up their need in research while the other phrase negate some of their ideas, In this situation they take and note one of them and ignore the rest so that they might not miss the opportunity to misinterpret Islam. In earlier pages, we have already discussed such issue about the authority of the tradition. First that was accompanied with the regular practice of the Muslim society and the second one was the type of tradition that contradicted the first. In such a case the traditionists and legists used to prefer the first accompanied with the practice of the community. Here the reason for preference is the uniformity of tradition and the practice not just the practice of the community. The same case is here in the statement of a Medīnese qādī: Therefore for the righteous research and perception of Islamic views, it is not necessary to omit or ignore the general context of the literature.

Schacht also concludes the same assumption as Juynboll concluded that the Madinese preferred the practice upon the practice of the Holy Proophet. He says it in such a way: “ The madinese thus opposed practice to tradition. The dead-lock between the two principals is well illustrated by the following anecdote, related in tabari (Annals, iii, 2505) on the authority of Malik : Muhammad b. Abi bakr b. Muhammad b. Amr b. Hazm was judge in Madina, and when he had given a judgment contrary to a tradition and came home, his brother, Abdullah b. abi bakr, who was a pious man, would say to him: my brother, you have given this or that judgment today.` yes, my brother.`Abdullah would ask what of the tradition, my brother? Tradition is important enough to have the judgment based on it. Muhammad would reply: Alas, what of the practice? – meaning the generally agreed upon practice in Madina, which they regarded as more authoritative than a tradition. ” 61

Schacht’s this objection can be refuted in the following ways: the statement referred by Schacht is quoted in fourth century and is not found in earlier centuries. According to Schacht’s own theory that the fourth century-work, having not been mentioned in earlier collections must therefore be spurious. And it has already been written that the early practice of the Madinese was taken as more authoritative than those traditions which were transmitted by a single transmitter.

Schacht has also pointed out some examples from the early life of the Muslim community and their legal discussions. He points out “ Malik( Muw. Iii, 134,136; Mud.x.44) and Rabi(tr.iii, 48) admit the sale of bales by Specification from a list, because it is the current practice in the past and present by which no uncertainty (gharar) is intended (Malik), or because men consider it as valid (Rabi). Mud.x.44 considers malik’s statement as authoritative (ḥujjah), particularly he states the practice , and finds it confirmed by traditions (athar) – not from the Prophet but from authorities such as Yahya b. Said who establishes the same practice.62

After reading Schacht’s reference there seems a prominent difference between what Schacht presents to prove and the conclusion he draws from it. Nothing in this quotation indicates that Mālik gave marked preference to a practice upon a tradition transmitted from the Holy Prophet. In these lines Mālik has tried to clarify the meaning of a

73 term, gharar, used in the tradition from the Prophet, acted upon it and how the legal jurists and scholars in the society understood its meaning. In fact Mālik and other men of letters have referred to their practice so that they may understand the real implications of the tradition transmitted from the Holy Prophet (PBUH).

Keeping last debates in view, it can be concluded clearly that there is no evidence presented by Schacht as authentic’ to make the statement that the early Muslim society used to give preference to their generally agreed upon practice on the tradition of the Prophet or His sunnah. This rule of Islamic jurisprudence is established in the very life of the Holy Prophet whilesending Mu‘ādh bin jabal, a well known companion of the Prophet, as governor of Yaman, he asked Mu‘ādh.

63 "مب تقضي؟ قال: مبا ِف كتاب ا هَّلل قال: فإن مل َتد؟ قال:مبا ِف سنة رسول ا هَّلل قال: فإن مل َتد؟ قال:أجتهد رأيي"

“with what you will decide? (Mu‘ādh) said: with what is in the Qur’ān, (Holy Prophet) asked: If you do not find (in Qur’ān)? (Mu‘ādh) replied: with what is in the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (Prophet) said: If you do not find (In sunnah of the Prophet)? (Mu‘ādh) replied: with my own opinion (in accordance with the spirit of Islam)” Upon which the Holy Prophet thanked Allah who guided the spirit of his companion according to His will.

Then how Schacht and his fellow orientalists claim that people preferred practice upon the practice of the Holy prophet when they read the traditions like that mentioned above and the statements of early Muslim scholars about the authority of Hadīth and sunnah.

2.1.3.3. Practice Falsely Ascribed to Early Authorities.

Like the other orientalists, Schacht also projects this claim that the later community ascribed their practice falsely to the earlier authorities so that they can make their own practice and views as authentic as those of earlier authorities. Schacht states in this style: “After the first legitimization of doctrine by reference to companions and also from the prophet went partly parallel with the further elaboration of doctrine within the “living tradition” of the ancient schools, but partly also represented the means by which definite changes in the accepted doctrine of a school were proposed and supported. These efforts were sometimes successful in bringing about a change of

74 doctrine, but often not, and we find whole groups “unsuccessful Medinese and Iraqian doctrines expressed in traditions.” 64

Mālik records the opinions of his immediate teachers, such as Nafi’, Zuhri, and Rabi’ah, as well as the opinions of first- century scholars such as ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn al-Musayyab, and ‘Urwah. In Schacht’s view, the doctrines ascribed to these early authorities cannot be taken as genuine, but are only a device used “in order to justify doctrines which reflected the current ‘practice’ or which were meant to change it.” He further notes that “these efforts were sometimes successful in bringing about a change … but often not.” 65

It might be theoretically possible to accept this view if the Medinese always followed the early authorities, but, as we have seen, Malik was sometimes in agreement and sometimes in disagreement with the authorities he quoted. If he was falsely ascribing doctrines to these authorities to bring about changes in the doctrine of the school, he would not then contradict what he had himself just fabricated. Was he perhaps under some kind of pressure that would not allow him to formulate his own doctrines as he wished but would make him want to pass on the relevant information to later authorities? There is no evidence that this kind of situation existed, and, in fact, there is abundant evidence to the contrary. We find many scholars changing their decisions whenever the weight of evidence indicates that they may have been wrong in the first place. Malik himself changed his doctrine continuously as, for example, regarding his opinion about al-Mash ‘ala al- Khuffain. 66

Similarly, we know Abū Yūsuf differed from the opinions of Abu Hanifa in almost a third of the cases they ruled upon. Two examples are the problems of the shares allotted to the horse and the soldier67 and of usury between a Muslim and non-Muslim in enemy territory.68 Abū Yūsuf likewise changed many of his own opinions. See, for example, his early opinion about the number of horses that ought to be given as shares in his booty of war.69 Shāfi‘ī, also, is famous for his “old doctrine” and his “new doctrine” (al-qaul al-qadīm and al-qaul al-jadīd).

These are but a few of the very many examples which could be adduced to show that scholars were free from outside coercion in the formulation of their doctrines. So we turn our attention to the problem

75 of why Malik first falsely ascribed doctrines to early authorities and then did not follow them. If he was really trying to change the doctrine of the school, then he weakened his case by not following them. All the evidence points to the fact that he reported doctrines and opinions of earlier scholars honestly, according to the best of his knowledge.

2.2. The Authority of Ḥadith and Sunnah as Second Source of Islamic Law and the Orientalists. 2.2.1. Dating the First Use of the Term Sunnah and the Orientalists.

The orientalists hold the view that because the term ‘sunnah of the Prophet’ was unknown to the early Islamic community even to the Qur’ān and the Holy Prophet, therefore its authority was also unknown to the early Muslim society. And as the time passed and the later happened to face several new legal problems, in these circumstances they had no option other than to invent the term sunnah of the Holy Prophet so that they could be able to solve these new problems in the light of this sunnah. In this view point, the orientalists differ from one another in dating the establishment of the earliest concept of prophetic sunnah. Some of them say it came into being during the life time of Shāfi‘ī, some say that ‘UmarII was the first person who followed the sunnah of the Prophet regularly. Let us take these views into observation and analyze that which of these can be considered nearer to the reality.

The well known orientalist juynboll holds that “ ‘UmarII was born in 60\680, 61\681 or 63\683, so it can be assumed that he started to emphasize his ideas concerning the sunnat an-nabi in any case not earlier than the year 80\700 and probably somewhat later.As noted above, on ‘Umer II’s instigation, in all likelihood after he had become caliph in 99/717, but perhaps somewhat earlier, Zuhri, who was then allegedly in his forties or fifties, is recorded to have been the first to make an organized collection of all the ‘ilm he could find. A significant report attributed to Ṣālih b. Kaysān (d. 140\758 or later) describes how Zuhri went about it: ‘Ibn Shihab and I’, said Ṣalih, ‘were looking for ‘ilm and we agreed to record the sunna. Thus we wrote down everything we heard about the Prophet. Then Zuhri said: “let us write down what we can find attributed to his companions.” But I said: “No, that is not sunna.” Zuhri, however, insisted that it was and recorded this also.’

Added Ṣalih ruefully: ‘I did not record it, so Zuhri became a successful traditionist, whereas I did not.” 70

Daniel W.Brown also assumes the same opinion in these words : “Thus the notion of sunna and the phenomenon of hadīth transmission originated and grew separately, following parallel but largely independent lines of development until after al-Shāfi‘ī.” 71

Daniel’s argument can be refuted just with Juynboll’s statement in which juynboll dates the adherence to the sunnah of the Prophet in the regime of ‘Umer II who died in 101 A.H. while Shāfi‘ī’s death is dated 204 A.H.

Juynboll states in these words: ‘UmarII was born in 60\680, 61\681 or 63\683, so it can be assumed that he started to emphasize his ideas concerning the sunnat an-nabi in any case not earlier than the year 80\700 and probably somewhat later.As noted above, on ‘Umar II’s instigation, in all likelihood after he had become caliph in 99/717, but perhaps somewhat earlier,…” so Daniel’s opinion about the dating of the use of the term sunnah seems baseless in the light of Juynboll’s opinion as well as reality.

On the other hand, Schacht supposes that the first use of the term sunnah of the Prophet came into existence in 76 A.H. by Khariji leader Abdullah ibn Ibad. He states in this way “The earliest, certainly authentic, evidence for this use of the term “sunnah of the Prophet” is the letter addressed by the Khariji leader ‘Abdu-llah Ibn Ibad to the Umayyad caliph ‘Abd al-Mālik about 76/695. The same term with a theological connotation, and coupled with the “example of the forebears,” occurs in the contemporary treatise which Hasan al-Basri addressed to the same caliph. It was introduced into the theory of Islamic law, presumably towards the end of the first century, by the scholars of Iraq.” 72

In this way Schacht indicates that the first use of the term sunnah was done in about 76 A.H. Indirectly by this statement, the first two assumptions of Daniel and Juynboll are refuted who claimed the first use of the word sunnah in Umar II’s regime and after Shāfi‘ī.

Philip K. Hitti also refutes the objections of the orientalists about the use of the term ‘sunnah of the Prophet’ and the authority of the Holy Prophet as a legislator. He says explicitly:

“Throughout his lifetime Muhammad served as God’s spokesman, thereby performing the triple function of legislation judge, and executive. The usage of Prophet (sunnah, “custom,” “use”) including his deeds, utterances and tacit approval was available. It clarified the scriptural text, elaborated on it, supplemented it, and thus fulfilled new demands. The Prophetic sunnah became in the first century after the hijrah the object of intensive study, next to the study of the Koran itself, the research involved collection, verification and recording.” 73

2.2.2. Use of the Term ‘Sunnah of the Prophet’ in Qur’ān and Ḥadīth & the Refutation of Orientalists’ Conclusions.

The revelation of the Holy Qur’ān and the sayings of the Prophet are the events happened in the life of the Holy Prophet not after his departure from the world. So if the term ‘sunnah of the Prophet’ appears in any of these sources, it would provide a solid proof that this word was considered as ‘sunnah of the Prophet’ in the very life-time of the Holy Prophet, not a single day after his death. Here are the proofs for this statement:

Understanding of this word ‘sunnah of the Prophet’ is revealed in the Holy Qur’ān in this verse.

ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ 74 لََق ْد َكا َن لَ ُك ْم ِِف َر ُسول ا هَّلل أُ ْسَوةٌ َح َسنَةٌ ل َم ْن َكا َن يَ ْرُجو ا هَّللَ َوالْيَ ْوَم اْْلَخَر َوذََكَر ا هَّللَ َكثريًاْ “There is surely a good example for you in the life of messenger of Allah, for the one who hopes to meet Allah and the life here after, and remembers Allah abundantly.”

In this verse word uswah is used instead of sunnah that is quite identical with sunnah both literally as well as contextually. Sunnah means a way of life while Uswah means a model or example of life.

In the same concept The Holy Prophet is reported to have said:

ِ ِ ُّ ِِ ِ ِ ِِِ 75 تَ َرْك ُت في ُك ْم أَْمَريْ ِن ، لَ ْن تَضلوا َما ََتَ هس ْكتُ ْم ِب َما: كتَا َب ا هَّلل َو ُسنهةَ نَبي ه "

“I leave with you two things: you will never go astray as long as you adher to them: The book of Allah and the sunnah of his Prophet.”

Here it has been confirmed that the axact wording of the Prophet means the same perception as we have claimed earlier.

Most of the orientalists claimed that the first use of term and concept ‘sunnah of the Prophet’ in Islamic history is dated not earlier than the death of the Holy Prophet but it has been proved in last pages that not only Qur’ān and Ḥadīth but also the impartial orientalists like Philip K. Hitti confirm the first use of the term ‘Sunnah of the Prophet’ during the very life of the Holy Prophet (PBUH).

2.2.3. The Authority of Ḥadīth and Sunnah as Second Source of Islamic Law and the Orientalists.

Orientalists maintain that in the early days of Islam, Qur’ān and Sunnah of the Prophet were not the basic sources of Islamic law. Margoliouth, while commenting on a report about the ‘practice of the Prophet’ states: “the practice of the Prophet in these stories is for commoner than any other phrase. The context in which these expressions are most frequently used is in reference to the third caliph, ‘Uthmān, whose conduct was supposed to differ seriously from that of his predecessors; though the charges formulated against him are always somewhat vague. It seems clear that the second source of law was not yet anything quite definite, but merely what was customary, and had the approval of person of authority, all of whom presentlymerged in the prophet.” 76

This statement of Margoliouth is refuted by much learned orientalist M. M. Bravman as he comments on the mistake erred by Margoliouth in this style: “D.S. Margoliouth in his book The early development of Mahomatanism (London 1926), p. 70, assumes that the practice of the Prophet, which in the early times is most frequently written regarding ‘Uthmān’ was not yet quite definite. But merely what was customary, that is: “The practice of the community of that time…… He writes further with respect to this theory it should be concluded that

79 the specific term Sīrat Rasūli-llah which is mentioned in ‘Uthmān’s oath of office (in Albaladuri’s report) for the practice and the procedure of the Prophet makes it perfectly clear that what is meant by the expression ‘the practice of the Prophet’ is the specific, personal practice of the Prophet himself and not the practice of the community. And it is the adherence to the personal practice of the Prophet, Sīrat Rasūli-llah, that is specifically demanded from the candidate to be elected as ‘Umar’s successor. Obviously, the adherence to the law of the Qur’ān was a more or less self-understood duty for anyone aspiring to that office, or, for that matter, for any believer. It is evident that the Prophet had his specific, personal practice (consisting of concrete, single practices, procedures, which no less than the practice indicated in the Qur’ān, could, of course, in part have roots in earlier practices…) But it is important fact that the adherence to the personal practice of the Prophet was, in connection with the election of ‘Umar’s successor, declared to constitute a basic principle.” 77

Juynboll also draws the conclusion resembling this one. He maintains that the rightly guided caliphs were also independent to set up their own opinions by ignoring the sunnah of the Prophet. He moves further on this assumption saying:

“So far a pattern seems discernible. A major historical source depicts the first three caliphs has mainly relying on their own personal judgments, offering only very few instances when they allegedly resort to following an example set by the Prophet”78

He speaks specifically about the first caliph, Abū Bakar in this way: “In conclusion it is safe to say that Abū Bakar cannot be identified with hadīth in any extensive way. This may show that during his reign examples set by the Prophet or His followers did not play a decisive role in Abū Bakar’s decision making. If this had been the case, many more traditions traced back to him, whether or not this ascription is historically genuine, would have been found in the earliest collections. On the contrary, these collections convey rather the idea that the first caliph of Islam, who suddenly saw himself faced with the enormous task of leading a community that had just lost its spiritual leader, relied almost exclusively on his own judgment.”79

About ‘Umar b. khattāb He says :

“In all there are just a few reports in which ‘Umar referred to a decision of the Prophet or where he explicitly followed this example” 80

About the decisions of ‘Uthmān mentioned in Ibn Sa’ad’s book he speaks :

“As for as Ibn Sa‘d is concerned, ‘Uthmān seems to have relied solely on his own Judgment. If he was inspired by the Prophet, this does not show in the Tabaqat, a source in which we would have expected to encounter at least a few references to his having copied the Prophet’s example, if that had been his custom.” 81

Most of the orientalists maintain that, in the early period of Islam, hadith of the Holy Prophet was not authorized as a source of Islamic law. According to their view point, it had no legal importance in Islam. Orientalists express a huge bulk of opinions regarding the legal status of hadīth and sunnah and the legal system of Islam. Some of their opinions are being summarized here:

Schacht comments about the authority of the Holy Prophet as a lawyer and concludes that the Holy Prophet continued relying upon the common and customary traditions of the Arab society. He says:

“His authority was not legal but, for the believer, religious and, for the lukewarm, political…Generally speaking, Muhammad had little reason to change the existing customary law. His aim as a Prophet was not to create a new system of law; it was to teach men how to act, what to do, and what to avoid in order to pass the reckoning on the Day of Judgment and to enter Paradise”82

He further says: “During the greater part of the first century Islamic law, in the technical meaning of the term, did not as yet exist. As had been the case in the time of the Prophet, law as such fell outside the sphere of religion, and as for as there were no religious or moral objections to specific transactions or modes of behavior, the technical aspects of law were a matter of indifference to the Muslims.”83

Not only Schacht and Juynboll but a good number of orientalistsalso maintain that the Holy prophet had no legal authority to make or teach laws. Anderson presents his views about this. He writes:

“It is evident that Muhammad himself made no attempt to work out any comprehensive legal system, a task for which he seems to have been singularly-suited; instead, he contented himself with what went little beyond adhoc amendments to the existing customary law”84

C. Snouck Hurgronje has also expressed the same type of ideas. He says; “Muhammad knew too well how little qualified he was for legislative work to undertake it unless absolutely necessary.”85

Another wellknown orientalist, Tyan, is holding such ideas also. He expresses:

“When one glances through the work of Muhammad one is easily convinced that he did not intend to institute a new judicial system nor to introduce a new system of legislation.”86

Arther Jeffery gives his comments about the time when aḥādīth or traditions of the Holy Prophet started to be utilized as a legal instrument for the solution of new arising issues. He says:

“After the Prophet’s death, however, the growing community of His followers found that a great many problems of religion, and even more of community life, were arising for which there was no specific guidance in the Qur’ān. Guidance was therefore sought in the traditions, Ḥadīth, as to what the Prophet had said and done, or was reported to have said and done. This vast accumulation of genuine, partly genuine, and quite spurious traditions was presently digested into the collections of Ḥadīth, six of which are considered to by the canonical collections. But as these canonical collections were primarily concerned with material of juristic nature, it follows that much material of importance for the religion of Islam had to be drawn from the other, un- canonical collections. It was well known to Muslims that much of the Ḥadīth material was spurious, but for the study of Islam even those traditions which the community invented and attributed to Muhammad have their value, often as much value as those which may actually have come from him.”87

Arthor Jeffery, in this commentary has tried his best to show that the authorized hadīth has no link with the life time of the Holy Prophet. On the contrary, according to him, it is the event happened after the

82 death of the Holy Prophet that hadith got this legal authority in Muslim community.

In the same way, H.A.R.Gibb. says:

“Where such traditions were found to exist, it was held the rulings they contained, explicitly or implicitly, were decisive and mandatory for the Muslims. The sunna (practice) of the Prophet obviously supersedes other sunna, and still more any spectacular reasoning. This argument (elaborated by the jurist al-Shāfi‘ī, d 820) was clearly unchallengeable that it was perforce acceptd in principle by all the schools of law.”88

Gibb accepts that Muslims found and preserved aḥādīth but these ḥādīth got the status of second source of Islamic law long after the death of the Holy Prophet even during the life time of the jurist Al- Shāfi‘ī, (d. 150 A.H.)

Infact, the orientalists questioning the basis of legal system of Islam have virtually missed the evidence of Qur’ān itself that not only gives a solid legal system but also defines the status and authority of the holy Prophet as world’s greatest lawgiver as well as explainer of the legal system of Islam. Other orientalists who have consulted the holy Qur’ān have reached the deductions much different from those who suspect the Islamic legal system. S. D. Goitein says clearly “that even strictly legal matters were not irrelevant to religion, but were part and parcel of the divine revelation and were included in the heavenly book, which was the source of all religion.89

He points out on another place that “ the idea of the Shari’a was not the result of post-Qur’ānic developments, but formulated by Muhammad himself” 90

He admits Qur’ān as a legal document in these remarks: “ In any case, if one condenses its subject matter to its mere essence, under five main headings of preaching, polemics, stories, allusion to the Prophet’s life and legislation, one will reach the conclusion that proportionately the Qur’ān does contain legal material not less than the Pentateuch, the Torah, which is known in world literature as “The Law.”91

Fitzgerald speaks about the nature of Islamic Legal system in this way: “ Islam regards God as the sole source of law and absolutely denies the power of any human authority to legislate” 92

N.J. Coulson speaks about the establishment of Islamic law in these remarks: “the principal that God was the only lawgiver and that his command was to have supreme control over all aspects of life was clearly established”.93

Philip K. Hitti also refutes the objections of orientalists about the authority of the Holy Prophet as a legislator. He says explicitly:

Mource Bucaille also plays his role to clear the true picture of the authority of hadith. He writes:

“During Muhammad’s life and after his death, complementary information of legislative nature was indeed sought in the study of the words and deeds of the Prophet.”95

2.2.4. Different Kinds of Revelation and the Authority of Ḥadīth and Sunnah.

To prove the authority of hadith and sunnah, we have to define first that; is revelation confined to the Scriptures revealed to the Prophets Or is there any other type of revelation besides them?

The answer is quite clear that every Prophet received Waḥī (revelation) and not all but some of the Prophets received scriptures. And those who did not receive any scriptures, yet they too received revelation. So it is clear that the revelation they received is other than the revelation of scriptures. So it may be concluded that no one can be messenger of God without receiving revelation but he can be a messenger without a scripture from God.

It can also be concluded that revelation was not confined to a book from God because if it was so, every Prophet would have been a possessor of a scripture from God. There is consensus of religious point of view that every messenger of God was not the receiver of a scripture but receiver of Waḥī (inspiration)

In the coming lines, we shall try to define what Wahī is and how many kinds this Wahī includes. A revelation is communication of God with man (messenger). God conveys his message to his messenger in these three ways.

ِ ٍ ِ ِه ِ ِ ِ ٍ ِ ِ ِِ ِِ ِ ِ ِ 96 "َوَما َكا َن لبَ َشر أَ ْن يُ َكل َمهُ ا هَّللُ إًل َو ْحيًا أَْو م ْن َوَراء ح َجاب أَْو ي ُْرس َل َر ُسوًًل فَ يُوح َي ِب ْذنه َما يَ َشاءُ إنههُ عَل ٌّي َحكي ٌم" ”No human would qualify to be spoken to directly by Allah without the intervention of a medium, nor is it befitting; but only by inspiration or vision, or from behind a veil or through a spirit who would actuate him with what Allah has ordained and with what He will; He is indeed ? Aliyun (Supreme) above all and beyond all and He is Ḥakīm (the Source of wisdom and wise mysterious dispensations.)”

This verse of the Holy Qur’ān indicates to these three ways through which the divine revelation is conveyed to the massengers of God.

2.2.4.1. Revelation by Inspiration.

ِ أَ ْن يُ َكل َمهُ ا هَّللُ إِهًل َو ْحيً ا In this first case, Allah sends his guidance direct to the heart of His Prophet. So the Prophet thinks and acts always in accordance with the will of God. 2.2.4.2. Revelation From Behind a Veil.

ِ ِ ِ أَْو م ْن َوَراء ح َجا ٍب God did conversation with Moses in this mode of revelation. God Said to him (A.S.)

ِ ِ 97 "َوأَََن ا ْخََْتتُ َك فَا ْستَم ْع لَما يُوَحى" “And I have chosen you to convey My divine message, therefore, listen carefully to all that shall be inspired to you”

2.2.4.3. Revelation by Sending a Messenger.

In case third the mode of revelation is by sending a messenger to the Prophet.

ِ "أَْو ي ُْرس َل َر ُسوًًل" So it is a proved fact that the Holy Qur’ān was revealed to the Holy Prophet viz the angle Gebriel. Almighty Allah says.

ِ ِ 98 "نَ َزَل بِه الُّروُح اْْلَم ُني" “It is brought down by the faithful and honourable Holy Spirit Jibril (Gabriel)”

“The Almighty says on another place.

ِِ ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِِ 99 قُ ْل َم ْن َكا َن عَ ُدًّوا ِلِْْبي َل فَإنههُ نَ هزلَهُ عَلَى قَ لْب َك ِب ْذن ا هَّلل ُم َص دقًا ل َما بََْني يََديْه َوُه ًدى َوبُ ْشَرى للْ ُمْؤمن َني “Say to them, O Muhammad: they must realize he who defies Jibril (Gabriel), it is he who imparts the Qur’ān to your consciousness with Allah’s Authority, corroborating AL-Towrah and carrying the torch of truth guiding into all truth, inspiring those with faithful hearts with blissful tidings.”

2.2.4.4. Revelations to Previous Prophets other than the Scriptures.

Holy Qur’ān proves that the previous messengers received revelations other than the scriptures. The Almighty Allah ordered Adam to live in Paradise in these words.

ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ه ِِ 100 "َوقُ لْنَا ََي آَ َدمُ ا ْس ُك ْن أَنْ َت َوَزْو ُج َك ا ِْلَنهةَ َوُكَل منْ َها َرغَ ًدا َحيْ ُث شئْ تَُما َوًَل تَ ْقَرَب َهذه ال هش َجَرةَ فَ تَ ُكوََن م َن الظالم َني" “We created from Adam his mate* who was mated to his design and said to him: «O Adam, make abode you and your wife in Paradise and eat as you will and wherever you will, it is all replete with choice of all delights, but do avoid this particular tree, keep off it and do not draw near it lest you both be wrongful of actions.”

Again the Almighty says;

" ِ ِ "101 قَا َل ََي آَ َدُم أ َنْبئْ ُه ْم ِِبَ ْْسَائِه ْم... “Then Allah said to Adam: «Tell them, Adam, of the designations and the destined purposes of all imparted to you...”

The Almighty reminded Adam and his wife about his previous instructions to them in these words:

ِ ِ 102 "َوََن َدا ُُهَا َرُِّبَُما أََملْ أَْْنَ ُك َماعَ ْن تلْ ُك َما ال هش َجَرة" “Allah, their Creator, summoned them by a call and said to them: Did I not command you both to keep off this tree,”

While addressing to the Prophet Noah, the same mode of revelation has been adopted by the Almighty.

" ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِه "103 َوأُوح َي إََل نُوٍح أَنههُ لَ ْن ي ُْؤم َن م ْن قَ ْوم َك إًل َم ْن قَْد آََم َن “Nuh was inspired by divine influence that: «No more of your people besides those who have already acknowledged the truth of your mission shall conform to Allah's will,”

Again he said;

" ِ "104 فَِإذَا ا ْستَ َويْ َت أَنْ َت َوَم ْن َمعَ َك عَلَى الُْفلْك... “And when you and those in your company have embarked,”

Shortly, the Almighty addressed the Prophet Noah, upon several occasions. All of these addresses were a type of revelation that formed no scripture.

Prophet Abraham was addressed by the Almighty in these words.

" ِ "105 ََي إِبْ َراه ي ُم أَ ْعِر ْض عَ ْن َه َذا... “O Abraham, seek not this”

It was a revelation but not part of a book.

Again the wisdom of Adam is praised by God in these words.

" ِ ِ ِ ِ "106 َوتلْ َك ُح هجتُ نَا آَتَ يْ نَاَها إِبْ َراهي َم عَلَى قَ ْومه... “One judgement was deduced from another; that was the reasoning We imparted to Ibrahim to use against his people's contention.”

The Prophet Abraham at first was attracted by different creatures like the stars, the moon, and the Sun but was later on rightly guided by the Almighty through the revelation. Upon having divine wisdom, Abraham came to know by their setting that the nature of the stars, the moon and the Sun is transitory therefore they cannot be considered as Gods.

The messenger Jacob expressed

"إِ ّنِي َألَ ِج ُد ِري َح يُو ُس َف... "107

“I do perceive Yūsuf's scent in the wind,”

His sons replied:

" َقالُوا تَا ه َِّلل إِ هن َك َل ِفي َض َال ِل َك ا ْل َق ِدي ِم "108

“But those who were around him said to him: «By Allah, you still live in your old perplexity and confused state of mind.”

When His prediction proved true, he replied with confidence in these words,

ِ ِ ِ 109 "قَا َل أََملْ أَقُ ْل لَ ُك ْم إِ ّن أَ ْعلَ ُم م َن ا هَّلل َما ًَل تَ ْعلَُموَن" “Did I not tell you that I know from Allah what you people do not know!”

Again it was a simple revelation not a part or verse of a book. Moses was also addressed by the Almighty during his competition with magicians. God said to him

110" " َوأَْوَحيْ نَا إََِل ُمو َسى أَ ْن أَلِْق عَ َصا َك “There and then did We inspire Mūssā to cast his staff upon the ground”

This order of the Almighty was a simple revelation not a book because the regular revelation of torah to Moses was so late.

All of the examples quoted above indicate clearly that those Prophets to whom no scriptures was revealed, they received revelations continuously and also those to whom scripture were sent, they received revelations before as well as after the revelation of the scriptures.

2.2.4.5. Proofs for the Revelations to Muhammad (PBUH) other than the Holy Qur’ān.

In the last pages we have described several examples from the lives of previous Prophets which ensure that sending the revelation other than the scriptures to the Prophets is a divine tradition since the very first Prophet of the Almighty. Here who intend to prove that this divine tradition (sunnah) has been continued also in the Prophethood of the last Prophet.

There are several proofs for the revelations other than the Holy Qur’ān revealed to the Holy Prophet. About all the sayings of the Holy Prophet The Almighty says:

" ِ ِ ِه "111 َوَما يَ نْط ُق عَ ِن اْْلََوى ة إ ْن ُهَو إًل َو ْح ٌي يُوَحى ة “Nor does he give utterance to words, moved by selfish motives, or utters error against Allah and commits his heart to inequity, But what he relates to you people is nothing other than a Qur’ān revealed to him by inspiration from Allah, and it extends to all subjects treated,”

When the Messenger besieged Banū Naḍeer, the Jewish Tribe, he ordered the cutting down of their palm trees. The tribe of Banū Qareẓah sent a message to the Messenger expressing their surprise: You forbid evil, they said, so how be it that you order the cutting down of palm trees! Allah reveals the following verse indicating to people that nothing the Messenger does but by Allah's approval.

" ِ ِ ٍ ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِ "112 َما قَطَْعت ُ ْم م ْن لينَة أَْو تَ َرْكتُُموَها قَائَمةً عَلَى أُ ُصوْلَا فَبإ ْذن ا هَّلل “No tree you Muslims uproot or you leave standing on its root, but is in accordance with Allah's leave”

This verse indicates that the Holy Prophet was given the permission to cut down the trees and then He (PBUH) did it accordingly. But this permission of the Almighty has nowhere been

89 written in the Holy Qur’ān. So it is obviously clear that the Holy Prophet received revelations other than the Holy Qur’ān.

Such numberless instances can be written as proof of the Prophet of having been received a large part of the revelations called ‘ahadīth’ other than the Holy Qur’ān.

2.2.5. Authority of Ḥadīth and Sunnah in the Holy Qur’ān.

In the coming pages, we shall try our best to clarify that the Holy Qur’ān itself gives Ḥadīth and sunnah a legal status and authority in Islam.

It has been the sunnah of the Almighty that He had been sending His Prophets to guide the human beings since the creation of the humanity. And it had been the duty of the humanity to follow and obey the Prophets sent by the Almighty.

The Almighty Allah says:

" َو َما أَ ْر َس ْلنَا ِم ْن َر ُسو ٍل إِ هال ِليُ َطا َع بِإِ ْذ ِن ه َِّللا... "113

“Never did We send a Messenger but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah” 113

In the same way the last Prophet (PBUH) has been sent to be obeyed by the community. Qur’ān says:

هِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ٍ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ "ََي أَي َُّها الذي َن آََمنُوا أَطيعُوا ا هَّللَ َوأَطيعُوا الهر ُسوَل َوأُوِل اْْلَْمِر منْ ُك ْم فَإ ْن تَ نَاَزْعتُ ْم ِِف َش ْيء فَ ُرُّدوهُ إََل ا هَّلل َوالهر ُسول إ ْن ُكنْ تُ ْم تُ ْؤمنُوَن ب ه َّلل ِ ِ 114 َوالْيَ ْوم اْْلَخِر" “O you whose hearts have been touched with the divine hand: Obey Allah and be submissive to His will and obey the Messenger who is the only medium through whom Allah's guidance, command, ordinance and word are conveyed and expressed. And obey those among you who are invested with authority. Nonetheless, should you seem resolved to dispute any subject or a concern, then resort to Allah’s Book -the Qur’ān- and betake yourselves to the Messenger for aid if in fact your hearts have been impressed with image of religious and spiritual virtues and you are strongly disposed to believe that the Last Day is comfortable to reality”

Qur’ān says further

" َل َق ْد َكا َن َل ُك ْم فِي َر ُسو ِل ه َِّللا أُ ْس َوةٌ َح َسنَةٌ "115

“Verily in the apostle of Allah ye have a beautiful pattern (of conduct)”

And also authorized the decisions of the Holy Prophet in these remarks:

ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ 116 "فََل َوَرب َك ًَل ي ُْؤمنُوَن َح هَّت ُُيَ ك ُموَك في َما َش َجَر بَ يْ نَ ُه ْم ُُثه ًَل ََي ُدوا ِِف أَنْ ُفسِه ْم َحَرًجا ِمها قَ َضيْ َت َويُ َسل ُموا تَ ْسليًما"

“But never, by Allah, your Creator, shall they be recognized as Muslims and be sanctioned by all solemnities of religion until they have willingly accepted you as the judge and/or the arbitrator. and accepted your judgement and submitted to your authority with submissive reverence, and reasoned high of Providence.”

And finally the Almighty Allah has said decisively:

" ِ "117 َم ْن يُط ِع الهر ُسوَل فَ َق ْد أَطَاعَ ا هَّللَ...

“He who obeys the Messenger has in effect obeyed Allah,”

In this verse the Almighty Allah has decided that the obedience to the Prophet is considered obedience to Him also. And those do not obey God who do not obey His Prophet. On another occasion obedience of the Prophet is considered a greatest source to win love and merry of God. The Almighty says:

ِ ِ ِ 118 "قُ ْل إِ ْن ُكنْ تُ ْم ُُتبُّوَن ا هَّللَ فَاتهبعُوِّن ُُيْببْ ُك ُم ا هَّللُ"

"Say to them all, O Muhammad: «If you people truly entertain a great love for Allah and you look upon Him as the heart of your purpose, then follow me.”

And whoever does not consider the obedience of the Prophet as obligatory, he goes astray.Qur’ān says:

” ِ “ 119 َوَم ْن يَ ْع ِص ا هَّللَ َوَر ُسولَهُ فَ َق ْد َضله َضَلًًل ُمبينًا “And whoever disobeys Allah and his Prophet has gone astray into manifest error.”

And whoever does not obey God and his Prophet is punished and burnt in the fire forever. Allah says: 4 " ِِ ِ "120 َوَم ْن يَ ْع ِص ا هَّللَ َوَر ُسولَهُ فَِإ هن لَهُ ََنَر َجَهنهَم َخالدي َن فيَها أَبًَدا... “And whoever disobeys Allah and his Prophet for him is the fire of Jahannam. There they shall remain forever.”

After all It is evident by the verses mentioned earlier that the Ḥadiīh of the Holy Prophet was authorized by the Almighty in the early period of his Prophet hood. So, the assumption, that hadith or sunnah of the Holy Prophet was given the authority long after the death of the Holy Prophet is totally wrong and baseless.

2.2.6. Authority of Hadīth and Sunnah in Prophetic Aḥādīth:

Not only the Holy Qur’ān but the Holy Prophet has also confirmed his hadīth and sunnah as second source of Islamic law. He said:

"تركت فيكم امرين لن تضلوا ما تمسكتم بهما كتاب هللا و سنة رسوله"121

“I leave with you two things after my death, if you hold on fast to them you can never go astray: They are the Book of Allah and the sunna of the Prophet.”

He has also commanded the Muslims to follow him while performing the rites during pilgrimage as well as in all the spheres of life. He said:

"خذوا عنى مناسككم"122

“(Learn the rites of pilgrimage from me )”

On another occasion he said:

" ِ "123 َصلُّوا َك َما َرأَيْ تُُموِّن أُ َصل ي “Say your prayes as you see me saying (the prayer)”

Authority of ḥadīth as second source of Islamic law is explained well in the ḥadīth of Ma‘ādh b. Jabal. It reads thus:

124 "مب تقضي؟ قال: مبا ِف كتاب ا هَّلل قال: فإن مل َتد؟ قال: مبا ِف سنة رسول ا هَّلل قال: فإن مل َتد؟ قال: أجتهد رأيي "

“with what you will decide? (Mu‘ādh) said: with what is in the Qur’ān, (Holy Prophet) asked: If you do not find (in Quran)? (Muadh) replied: with what is in the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (Prophet) said: If you do not find (In sunnah of the Prophet)? (Muadh) replied: with my own opinion (in accordance with the spirit of Islam)” Upon which the Holy Prophet thanked Allah who guided the spirit of his companion according to His will.

Obedience to the Holy Prophet isobligatory and he who follows the Holy Prophet will enter into the paradise and he who denies his obedience will deny to enter into paradise and finally will be deprived of paradise. The Holy Prophet said:

" ِ ِ "125 ُكلُّ أُهمِِت يَْد ُخلُوَن اِلَنهةَ إهًل َم ْن أََب، قَالُوا: ََي َر ُسوَل ا هَّلل، َوَم ْن ََيَْب؟ قَا َل: َم ْن أَطَاعَِِن َد َخ َل اِلَنهةَ، َوَم ْن عَ َصاِّن فَ َق ْد أََب “Whole of my Ummah (community) will enter into paradise except those who denied, He was asked, who will deny? the Holy Prophet said, he who followed me will enter into paradise and he who disobeyed, refused (to enter into paradise) ”

The idea that only the Holy Qur’ān is sufficient to serve as the first and the last source of Islamic law has also been refuted in a well known hadīth of the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet said:

“Be aware that I have been given the Qur’ān and with it another source of guidance like this. It is not far away that a saturated man lying by a pillow would say, ‘follow the Holy Qur’ān firmly and consider lawful what is lawful in it and consider unlawful what you find unlawful in it’. Obviously, Prophet’s announcing unlawful is just like God’s announcing unlawful”126

References Chapter: II

1 Qur’ān, 39:23.

2 Qur’ān, 20:9.

3 Qur’ān, 66: 3.

4 Bukhārī, Muhammad b Ismā‘el, Al Jāmi‘ al Ṣaḥiḥ, Ilm, Al ḥirth ala al-Ḥadīth.

5 Ḥanbal, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, Mu‘assisa tul Risāla, Vols. 40, 1421/2001, vol.22, p.320

6 Ibid. , Anbiya; 50.

7 Ibn Abi Shaeba, Abu Bakr, Musaannaf, Maktabat ul Rushd, Riyadh, 1409 A. H. 7 vols. , 5/ 235

8 Muslim Studies, 2/17.

9 Dārmī, Abdullah b. ‘Abdur Rehmān, Sunan, (Kānpūr, 1292-3), p. 46.

10 Al-Dhahabī, Muhammad b. Aḥmad, Tadhkirat-ul-Huffāẓ, (Hyderabad, 1330 A.H.) , 1/6-7.

11 Al-Qastalānī, al-Muwāhib al-Ladunniyyā, with Commentary of al-Zarqānī, (Cairo,1291 A. H.) , p.454.

12 Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-‘Arab, art; sunan; (E. W. Lane, Arabic English Lexicon, Edinburgh, 1867), 4/1438.

13 A‘zami, M. Mustafa, On Schacht’s Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, p.30.

14 Al-Hudhalīen, dīwān, (Cairo,1385 A. H.) , p.157.

15 Qur’ān, 33:62.

16 Qur’ān, 8:38.

17 Mālik, b. Anas, Muwattā, al-nahi an al-qowl bi al-qadr.

18 Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushairī, al-Jami‘ al-Ṣaḥīḥ, Man ssanna sunnatan ḥasnataan an o sayyiatan wa man d‘ā.

19 Fazlur Rahmān, Islamic Methodology in History, Central Institute of Islamic Research, Karachi, 1965), p.1.

20 Muslim Studies, 2/25-26.

21 Qur’ān, 33:62.

22 Schacht, Joseph, An Introduction to Islamic Law, (Universal law Publishing Co. , 1997), pp.17-18.

23 Schacht, Joseph, Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, (Oxford; At the Clarendon Press, 1975), pp.58-59.

24 Ibid, p.58.

25 Margoliouth, D. S. , The Early Development of Muhammadanism, (Williams and Norgate, London, 1914), pp.69-70.

26 At-Ṭabarī, Muhammad b. Jarīr, Annals (Tarīkh at-Ṭabarī) Edited by A. Abul Faḍl Ibrāhīm, (Paging according to De Goeje’s Edition, Leiden, 1879-1901), 1/2937.

27 Ibid. , I/3166.

28 Ibid. , I/3298.

29 Ibid. , II/240.

30 Ibid. , II/984.

31 Ibid. , I/3368.

32 Ibid. , I/3044.

33 Ibid. , II/455.

34 Ibid. , I/3419.

35 Ibid. , II/1083.

36 Ibid. , I/3427.

37 Ibid. , I/3132.

38 Ibid. , I/2929.

39 Ibid. , I/3044.

40 Ibid. , II/1700.

41 Ibid. , I/3236.

42 Ibid. , II/1961.

43 Muhammadanism, p.70.

44 Annals, I/3166.

45 Ibid. , II/240.

46 Ibid. , II/984.

47 Ibid. , II/1700.

48 Ibid. , I/3236.

49 Bravmann, M. M. ,The Spiritual Background of Early Islam, (Leiden E. J. Brill, 1972), pp. 128-29.

50 Ibid. p. 130.

51 Origins, pp. 58-59.

52 Zirklī, Khairud dīn, al-A‘lām, 10 vols. , (Cairo, 1373), 4/284.

53 On Schacht’s , p.41.

54 Ibn al-Muqaffah, Itt. , 349, published in Ᾱthār Ibn al-Muqaffah, (Beirut, 1966).Cf. On Schacht’s, p.41.

55 On Schacht’s, pp. 42-43.

56 Ibid. , p.43.

57 Origins, p. 63.

58 Ibid, p.63.

59 Ibid. , p.63.

60 Juynboll, P.37.

61 Origins, pp. 63-64.

62 Ibid, p.64.

63 Al-Shāfī‘, Muḥammad b. Idrīs, Musnad Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmia, (Beirut, 1370/1951), 2 vols. , 1/218.

64 Origins, p.66.

65 Ibid.

66 Shaibānī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥassan, al-Ḥujja ‘alā ahl al-Madīna, edited by S. M. Ḥasan, (Hyderabad, 1385/1965), 1/23-47.

67 Abu Yūsuf Ya‘qūb b. Ibrāhīm, al-Radd ‘ala Siyar al-Auzā‘ī, edited by

Al-Afghānī, Cairo, 1357, p.21.

68 Ibid. p. 97.

69 Compare al-Radd alā Siyar al-Auzā‘ī, p. 41, with Abu Yusuf, Kharāj, p.19.

70 Juynboll, p.34-35.

71 Daniel W. Brown, Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought, (Cambridge University Press, 1996), p.12.

72 Schacht, Joseph, An introduction to Islamic law, (Universal law Publishing Co. , 1997), p.18.

73 Way of life, p. 42.

74 Qur’ān, 33:21.

75 Muwattā, al-nahi an al-qowl bi al-qadr.

76 Muhammadanism, p.70.

77 Spiritual Background, p.128-29.

78 Ibid, p.28.

79 Ibid, p.25.

80 Ibid, p. 26.

81 Ibid, p.28.

82 An Introduction to Islamic Law, p. 11.

83 Ibid, p. 19.

84 Anderson, J. N. D. Recent Developments in Shariy‘a Law, Muslim World, 40 (1950), p. 245.

85 Snouck, Hurgronje C. Muhammadanism, 1916, p. 60.

86 E. Tyan, Histoire De l’ Organization Judiciare en Pays d’ Islam, (Leiden, 1960). p. 64. Cf. On Schacht’s, p. 16.

87 Jeffery, Arther, Islam, Muhammad and his Religion, (Indiana, 1979), p. 12.

88 Gibb, Islam Included the Encyclopedia of Living Faith, n. d., p. 171.

89 Goitein, S. D. , Studies in Islamic History and Institutions, (Leiden, 1965),pp.129- 30.

90 Ibid, p.133.

91 Ibid, p.128.

92 Fitzgerald, S. V. , “The Alleged Debt of Islamic to Roman Law,” Law Quarterly review, 67(January 1951), p. 82.

93 Coulson N. J. , A History of Islamic Law, (Lahore Law Times Publications, 1980), p.20.

94 Hitti, Islam; Way of Life, (Oxford University Press, London, 1971), p. 42.

95 Bucaille, Maurice, The Bible, the Qur’ān and Science, (Lahore, 1979), p. 259.

96 Qur’ān, 42:51.

97 Qur’ān, 20:13.

98 Qur’ān, 26:193.

99 Qur’ān, 2:97.

100 Qur’ān, 2:35.

101 Qur’ān, 2:33.

102 Qur’ān, 7:22.

103 Qur’ān, 11:36.

104 Qur’ān, 23:28.

105 Qur’ān, 11:76.

106 Qur’ān, 6:83.

107 Qur’ān, 12:94.

108 Qur’ān, 12:95.

109 Qur’ān, 12:96.

110 Qur’ān, 7:117.

111 Qur’ān, 53:3-4.

112 Qur’ān, 59:5.

113 Qur’ān, 4:64.

114 Qur’ān, 4:59.

115 Qur’ān, 33:21.

116 Qur’ān, 4:65.

117 Qur’ān, 4:80.

118 Qur’ān, 3:31.

119 Qur’ān, 33:36. 120 Qur’ān, 72:23. 121 Muwaṭṭā, al-nahi an al-qol bi al-qadr.

122 Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Yūsuf b. Abdullah, Jāmi‘ Bayān al-‘Ilm wa Faḍlih, (Dār ibn al- Jaudhī, Saudi Arabia, 2 vols. , First edition, n. d. Saudi Arabia), 2/1189.

123 Ibn Ḥibbān, Muḥammad ,Ṣaḥīḥ, (Muwassisat ul-Risāla, Beirut, 18 Vols. , 1414/1993), 4/54.

124 Musnad, al-Shāf‘ī, 1/218.

125 Bukhārī, Iqtidā’ bi Sunani Rasūl Allah.

126 Al-Shatibī, al-Muwāfaqāt fi uṢūl al-Shariya’a, (Maktaba

Mustafā Muḥammad, Cairo), n. d

CHAPTER III

100

THE PRESERVATIONAND COMPILATION OF ḤADĪTH AND SUNNAH

Chapter III

The Preservation and Compilation for Ḥadīth And Sunnah

In this chapter we shall try to prove that the Ḥadīth of the Holy Prophet has been preserved and transmitted to the next generations throughout the Islamic history. The long series of the proofs of this statement will be sufficient to satisfy a reasonable reader to believe that Hadith has reached us safe and sound through the annals of history. Its start will be taken from the earliest methods of the preservation of ḥadīth.

3.1. The Earliest Methods of the Preservation of Ḥadīth.

Owing to the importance of ‘ḥadīth’ in the legal formation of Islam as the second source of Islamic Law, The Holy Prophet (PBUH) made sure its preservation by advising His companions. They, as they were already eager to do this, preserved this important source through the methods & sources available to them in those days. These are as written below:

101

3.1.1. Memorization (Learning by Heart)

Most of the orientalists raise the objection that the aḥādīth of the Holy Prophet came into existence in writing long after the death of the Holy Prophet. According to them, the early Muslims gave no legal importance to these Prophetic sayings because they had never considered them as necessary for the Islamic jurisprudence. The orientalists maintain that these Prophetic sayings remained scattered in the memories of the Muslims until the middle of the second century after Hijrah.1

According to my observation in the light of a brief survey of the pages of Islamic history, the orientalists criticize this memorization because either they are not fully aware of the social history of the Arabs and literary history of Islam or they consciously maintain a partial opinion about the historicity of hadith literature. Their objections concerning this issue can be answered properly through these points which will clarify that how the orientalists have failed to understand the true picture of the early preservation of the precious Islamic Literature.

• Real history of the early Islamic literature reveales that, in the Prophetic period, the Holy Qurā’n and the Aḥādīth were not only learnt by heart but were also preserved in the shape of writing by the companions individually. A series of proofs in this regard will be presented in the coming pages of this section under the heading of ‘Writing’. • The Arabian people possessed so strong memory power that it was a prominent source of pride for them. The stronger memory they had the superior they were. To content their sense of pride, they were in habit to memorize numberless verses of poetry, Pedigrees, Not only theirs but also of their enemies, common people, their horses and camels. They as well as their children were also expert in this genre of knowledge who knew the pedigrees of several tribes. A report tells us that Ḥammād, an Arab poetry narrator memorized one hundred long poems from each letter of the alphabets.2

The Arabs felt so much pride on their memory power that they relied upon their memory more than upon writing. They considered it a blemish to preserve their poetry in written form because they thought that alteration in written text is easier than in memorization. That is why if any one of the poets possessed his poetry in writing, he tried his best to keep it close to himself because it was considered a defect in one’s memory as well as in poetry.3

102

This memory power of Arabs is so famous and out of question throughout the history of the world that historians as well as a good number of orientalists accept this historical fact that the Arabs, throughout their social and literary history, are famous because of their unique and strong memory power and its utilization for the preservation of the Ahādīth of the Holy Prophet. They admit these strong social traditions of the Arabs that they were in a very firm habit to memorize and maintain their social and tribal traditions and pedigrees of their forefathers in the same shape throughout centuries.

Rev. Mr. forster, a great historian presents his comments about this historic reality. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan copies his comments thus; “The proverbial attachment of the Arabians, in all ages, to the manners, customs and remembrances of primeval antiquity, may well be placed first among these considerations; since by universal consent of authorities, this predilection stand foremost among their national characteristics”4

Forster’s observation and commentary shows clearly that the Arabs were very strict and firm in this historical habit to remain attached with their traditions, manners and customs. For this purpose they relied only upon their memorizing power by which they preserved all these customs for centuries.

The same image of this reality is drawn by Dean Prideaux. He explains it in these words; “The Arabs being the most ancient nation in the world…Who have always remained in a continued descent, from the first planters of it, eve to this day; being also a little given to make changes in their manners and usages as they are as to country, have retained those same names of places which were at first given to them. Thus, The ancient metropolis of Egypt, which was called Mesri, and which afterwards, for many ages, had the name of Memphis, was on the Arabs making themselves master of Egypt, again called Mesri, and hath retained that name ever since.”5

Prideaux lays full stress upon the fact that the Arabs, being the most ancient nation in the world, are very strict in their attachment to their old customs and manners. He wants to emphasize that the Arabs use their extreme power of memory to maintain and retain their ancient social traditions. It is one of the reasons that they paid their full attention towards the preservation of all the customs, manners, traditions and rituals of which Ahādīth of the Holy Prophet contained.

103

Prof. Rawlinson also describes this habit of the Arabs as common and famous in their society. He explains: “There is in Palestine another kind of tradition, with which the monasteries have had nothing to do- I mean the preservation of the ancient names of places among the common people. This is truly national and native tradition, not derived in any degree from the influence of foreign converts or masters, but drown in by the peasant with his mother’s milk, and deeply seated in the genius of the semitic languages. The Hebreo names of places continued current, in their Aramaean or, long after the times of new testament; and maintained themselves in the mouths of the common people, in spite of the efforts made by Greeks and Roman to supplant them by others derived from their own tongues.”

All the evidences mentioned above indicate clearly that how much the Arabs were conservative about their customs, manners and traditions that they preserved them in the same original shape and sense. And it has also been proved that a good number of realist orientalists not only admit but they also express it openly that the Arabs possess a strong historical habit to preserve their social rites, customs, traditions, manners and pedigrees strictly. They also admit that the Arabs used their strong ability of solid memorization for this purpose. And they did not like to save them in writing because it was considered a blemish for one’s memory.

In the previous pages, we have tried to let the reader realize the Arabs’ strength of memory and its utilization in the pre-Islamic and post-Islamic era for the preservation of their social customs and manners etc.

From now onward, we shall try to show how important was the Sunna of the Holy prophet for the legal system of Islam and how the Holy Prophet and his companions utilized their memory power to learn and preserve the basic legal sources of Islamic jurisprudence.

The Holy Prophet, owing to the legal and social importance of his hadith and sunna, Said:

" ِ ِ ُّ ِِ ِ ِ ِِِ "6 " تَ َرْك ُت في ُك ْم أَْمَريْ ِن ، لَ ْن تَضلوا َما ََتَ هس ْكتُ ْم ِب َما: كتَا َب ا هَّلل َو ُسنهةَ نَبي ه “I have left with you two things; you shall never go astray as long as you follow them: the holy Book of Allah and the sunnah of his Prophet.”

104

Now, because the Holy Prophet as well as his companions realized the significance of ḥadīth in future therefore the Holy Prophet said:

" ِ ِ "7 نَ هضَر ا هَّللُ عَبْ ًدا َْس َع َمَقالَِِت فَ َحفظََها َوَوعَاَها َوأَهداَها

“May Allah bestow vigor to the person who hears my saying and memorizes it then conveys it to others (exactly as he hears it)”

Keeping it in view and realizing the legal importance of Ḥadīth the companions of the Prophet encouraged themselves to devote considerable time to preserve these Aḥādīth by each method they could use for this purpose. Because they considered the Sunnah as the most important to be preserved second to the Holy Qur’ān and nothing was more important than these two, so their eagerness exceeded their effort to preserve their poetry and literature.

Here we present a few examples from the lives of Prophet’s companions to show how they utilized their memory power to preserve the Prophetic Aḥādīth in their memories.

The unique narrator and companion Abū Hurairah, (R.A) who reported 5374 Aḥādīth from the Holy Prophet, says about his nights.

جزأت الليل ثالثة أجزاء، ثلثا أصلى، وثلثا أنام، وثلثا أذكر فيه حديث رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم. 8

Abu Huraira (R.A.) was the famous companion of the Prophet who was the most prominent of those companions who had devoted their lives to learn and preserve the commands of Almighty coming in the shape of Qurā’n and Aḥādīth. He had reported the Aḥādīth of the Prophet more than any other companion because he spent his time with the Holy Prophet more than any other companion.

It has been preserved in history about Abū Hurairah (R.A) that once the Governor of Madina, Marwan, tested his memory. The Governor called Abū Hurairah (R.A) to his house where Abu Huraira (R.A) had to narrate some Ahādīth of the Holy Prophet.9

Commonly, the companions used to listen to the Holy Prophet in the Mosque or any where in his company. But as the Holy Prophet left them, they used to revise in their hearts what they had learnt from him. Anas R.A. Says about this practice in this way. “We sat with the

105

Prophet, may be 60 persons in number, then the Prophet taught them Ḥadīth. Later on, if he went away for any work then we used to memorize it among ourselves, and by the time we left, it had been cultivated in our hearts.10

This practice has also been described well by Mu‘āwia11Abu Al Darda also relates this common practice among the companions. 12 In this way, those who were absent used to learn from those who had been present. This has also been described by the famous follower of the Holy Prophet Bara bin Azib13

Several other events can also be presented concerning this topic from which it will be eminent that the companions took great benefit from the God gifted memories to memorize and preserve the Prophetic Aḥādīth.

Here we see briefly, in detail it will be seen in chapter five entitled “The Science of the criticism of Ḥadīth narration”, the traditionists discovered the science of Asma-ur-Rijāl by which they have deduced trustable means to judge the memory power of narrators of Aḥādīth. Traditionists always refused to accept any tradition as trusted unless all of its narrators were proved to possess high memory standards.

Memories of Aḥādīth reporters are totally unique and prominent in authenticity from the memory of a lay man of today who watches an event and conveys it to others in a careless manner and sometimes adds something from his own side just to create some interest in this event so that people listen to him carefully. Here we present some points which will indicate that how the memories and reports of Prophet’s companions and other traditionists are more valid and authentic than any other reports conveyed by common people.

A. Memory power of Arabs and their historical habit to memorize their cultural heritage from generation to generation.

Standard of memory power is a big reliable source to preserve and report Aḥādīth correctly. The traditionists introduced very hard and fast regulations to examine one’s memory power and his state of mind on which the one’s reports/traditions were classified.

B. Importance of the reports in the eyes of the reporters.

106

The companions as well as their followers were fully aware of the legal importance of Aḥādīth in Islam and they also knew that any type of misconduct, misstatement of negligent reporting in this genre of literature will cause them to be cursed in this world as well as in the world hereafter. This firm belief equipped them with a strong sense of care and responsibility. A journalist while reporting a common event in which common people are involved, can report its contents with less care and accurary. On the other hand, if the prime Minister of his country is involved in this event, he will show more care and precaution and will employ take ttmost care to convey this event as transparent as possible. It shows that how the importance of a report impresses the profession of its preacher. It is an accepted historical fact that the companions and other reporters of Prophetic traditions had very firm belief that reports about the revelation, Holy Qurā’n and Aḥādīth of the Holy Prophet are more important than any other report of worldly affairs. They considered it a very important source of Islamic law that would guide the next generations to the right path until the day of Judgment. So, this thought makes them more careful and eager that if they report the Aḥādīth for the guidance of the next generations they will be blessed and rewarded by God and their reward will last up to the day of judgment and if they misreported and the next generations followe their misguidance, they will be cursed by God until the day of judgment.

3.1.1.1. Profession and Interest of the Reporter.

Profession and interest of the reporter is another factor that effects on the correctness of a report. If the reporter possesses negligence and takes no pain in conveying the report with full accuracy, the report cannot be relied upon and its authenticity will be challenged by everyone. On the contrary, if the reporter is interested in the matters of the event, he then will note and report this news with full accuracy and correctness and his report will be trusted and considered reliable.

In the same way, the deep interest of the companions in memorizing, preserving, and reporting the Aḥādīth of the Holy Prophet is a historial reality.

107

4. A great difference can be seen in memorizing some event which emergently came into one’s knowledge who neither needed nor he took interest to remember the event anymore and memorizing the event about which the reporter is already interested and is eager to know it and finally memorizes it carefully. In the first case the reporter had no interest in the happening memorizing and preserving of the event. So he watched it and forgot it. But, in the second case, the reporter was waiting for the happening of event to record it and then to preserv it. It is evident that it was the importance of Ḥadīth and Sunnah in the minds of Prophet’s companions that compelled them to memorize and preserve more and more Aḥādīth. The whole discussion indicates that the memorization was not a weak technique to preserve Aḥādīth as most of the Orientalist’s say. But the fact is that they do not have enough knowledge about the nature of Ḥadīth literature. According to writer’s point of view, memories of trusted reporters of ḥadīth are a source more reliable than preserving the Aḥādīth in a book form.

3.1.2. Disscussions.

The universe has not seen a community more obedient to their leader than the community of the companions of the Holy Prophet. Mutual understanding between the Holy Prophet and His companions was up to extreme level. History of the humanity cannot present the example of the love, obedience, and sacrifice which is performed by the companions of the last Prophet of the Almighty. The companions kept themselves waiting for the commandments of the Holy Prophet. As the Holy Prophet instructed something, they used to learn it by heart and then preach it to other fellows so that they might also get benefit of it.

The companions knew this command of the Holy Prophet;

108

" ِ " بَ ل غُوا عَِ ِن َولَْو آيَة ً “Convey to others on my behalf even though it be a single verse.”14

It was the second source for the preservation of Ḥadīth. For this purpose, mutual discussions by the companion were taken into practice. Whenever the Holy prophet spoke some new Ḥadīth, the companions used to report it to their other fellows. In this way each and every companion would tell others just after listening to some new Ḥadīth of the Holy Prophet.

Here some of the Aḥādīth are presented to this effect.

" ِ ِ "15 نَ هضر هللا امرءاً ْسع منها حديثاً، فحفظه حَّت يبل غَه غريَه “May God provide happiness to a person who listens to hadith from me and memorizes it until he conveys it to others the same as he listened to”

In this Ḥadīth, the Holy Prophet has asked pleasure in both the lives, in this world and in the world hereafter, for all those who preserve the Aḥādīth of Holy Prophet and then preach them to the people.

On another occasion, the Holy Prophet commanded his companions.

"ِ ِ ِ ِ "16 ليُ بَ ل ِغ ال هشاه ُد الغَائ َب “Those who are present should convey (my Aḥādīth) to those who are absent”16

This command of the Holy Prophet played a key role in the preservation and spread of the Aḥādīth of the Holy Prophet. Because it was spoken on an occasion when a large number of companions gathered around the Holy Prophet that neither before nor after this occasion they gathered in such a large number. Therefore this command would have reached each companion of the Holy Prophet.

The Holy Prophet also encouraged his companions to narrate and study the Aḥādīth in their gatherings. The Holy Prophet said :

" ِ ِ ه ِ ِ "17 تََداُر ُس الْعلِْم َساعَةً م َن الليْ ِل، َخْريٌ م ْن إِ ْحيَائَها

109

“Mutual teaching of knowledge (sunnah of the Prophet) for any period of time in the night is better than spending the whole night in worship.”

From these instructions the Holy Prophet’s purpose was to train his companions to teach his Sunnah to each other. According to this Ḥadīth, one companion used to narrate a prophetic Ḥadīth to other and then the other narrated it to the first so that each of them may correct his mistake if any.

In some other Ḥadīth the Holy Prophet warned his companions not to hide any type of knowledge because it is considered a big sin in the eyes of the Almighty.

The Holy Prophet said:

" ِ ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِ ِِ ٍ ِ "18 َم ْن ُسئ َل علْ ًما يَ ْعلَُمهُ فَ َكتََمهُ جيءَ به يَ ْوَم الْقيَاَمة ُملْ َج ًما بل َجام م ْن ََنر “Whoever is asked about the knowledge he has, thereafter conceals it, will be brought with it on the day of judgment bridled by a rein of fire.”18

The Holy Prophet opened the real face of the concealment of knowledge and called it a big sin in itself even though the possessor of knowledge is not asked to disclose or to spread it. He (PBUH) Said:

"من كتم علما ينتفع به جاء يوم القيامة ملجحا بلجام من النار"19

“Whoever conceals knowledge which can be beneficial, will come on the day of judgment bridled with the bridle of fire.”

In this Ḥadīth, it is clarified that preaching and disclosure of knowledge is a religious and moral obligation on the person having knowledge even if he is not asked to speak about it.

As the sunnah of the Holy Prophet was the most valuable genre of knowledge in the minds of the companions therefore they took the responsibility of preaching it to the rest of the world. Whenever and wherever they went, they took the knowledge of Prophetic tradition with them and distributed it among the people. Whenever they met, they told one another about the personality, character and message of the Holy Prophet.

110

As it was not possible for every companion to be with the Prophet on every occasion, they came to an agreement between themselves to attend his circle in shifts. It was a common practice among them to inform absentees about the Prophet’s sayings and deeds.20

3.1.3. Practice.

Third way to preserve was practice. Companions used to take in practice each and every sunnah of the Holy prophet in their daily lives. Because the sunnah of the Holy Prophet was not simply theoretical or philosophical information but rather it had very close link with the daily activities of human life. The Holy Prophet did not keep himself limited to the lessons and sermons only but He trained His followers to act upon and preserve each of His sunnahs. Each of His companions was so much motivated in acting upon the prophetic sunnah that he tried his best to copy and imitate even His personal habits. So because of the devotion of the companions, it was the atmosphere that prophet’s sunnah had become a sacred living fashion and widespread behavior commonly visible everywhere in society in all the affairs of their daily life. Thus, constant practice in accordance with the dictates of the Sunnah was another major factor which advanced the process of preserving the Sunnah and protected it from the foreign elements aiming at its distortion.

3.1.4. Writing.

It is the fourth way utilized for the preservation of hadith that started in the life of the Holy Prophet and appeared as the largest way to preserve and compile the Aḥādīth in the second and 3rd century after Hijrah. Under this topic, we shall include these points;

A. Objections on the reasons and attitude of the orientalists regarding the writing or recording of ḥadīth. B. Reasons for the Prophetic prohibition from the writing of aḥādīth. C. Solid proofs for the writing and recording Aḥādīth since the very life of the Holy Prophet.

3.1.4.1 Objections on the Reasons and Attitude of Orientalists Regarding the Writing or Recording of Ḥadīth.

It is generally believed that for one hundred years after the death of the Holy Prophet, Aḥādīth were orally transmited.

111

This point of view is written and owned by not only the Ḥadīth opponents but by early traditionists also. ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al ‘Aziz was the first who asked Abū Bakr b. Muhammad. ‘Amr b. Hazm , al-zuhrī and others to collect aḥādīth and al-Zuhrī was the first who recorded them. On the authenticity of this statement, there are differences of opinion among orientalists.21

William Muir gives his comments in these words; “About a hundred years after Mohammad, the caliph ‘Umar II. Issued circular orders for the formal collection of all extant traditions. The task, thus begun, continued to be vigorously prosecuted ; but we possess no authentic remains of any compilation of an earlier date than the middle or end of the second century of the Hijra.”22

Alfred Guillaume relates the earliest collection and recording of hadīth in these words. “The earliest date which Muhammadans give for the collection of ḥadīth is contained in the following tradition, said to rest on the authority of Mālik b. Anas (94-179). ‘Umar b. ‘Abdu-l ‘Aziz wrote to Abū-Bakr. B. Muhammad b. ‘Amr with the order: ‘See what ḥadīth of the Prophet of God are extant or ancient customs (Sunna madiya) or ḥadīth known to Amra, and write them down: for I stand on dread of the disappearance of knowledge and of the death of them that possess it.’ This Abū Bakr b. Muhammad was one of the AnṢār whom ‘Umar II appointed judge at Madina, and ‘Amra was his aunt. After writing this hadith Alfred presents Muir’s comments on it and then he himself comments on Muir’s statement as well as on this tradition in this way: “It would seem that this writer accepts the statement at its face value; but the fact that no authentic remains of this alleged first-century compilation are extant, and that the indefatigable students and compilers of tradition in the third century make no mention of an effort to trace such early documents, suggest very strongly that the tradition is not based on fact. It is difficult, if not impossible, to suggest a cogent reason why such an early collection, if it existed, should never have been mentioned by later scholars whose life-work it was to recover the genuine ḥadīth of the apostolic period. For this reason the ḥadīth must be regarded an invention designed to connect the pious caliph, whose zeal for the sunnah was gratefully recognized by theologians, with the tradition literature of Islam”.23

In the next lines Alfred writes about two more second-century writers and calls their writings as books of jurisprudence, not of hadith. He says thus “two other second-century writers have been cited as authors of compilation of ḥadīth, namely, ‘Abd-al Malik b. Juraij and Said b. Abi ‘Arūba. Their works

112

are not extant; but from the description of them given by later writers there is little doubt but that they were books of jurisprudence (Fiqh), drawn up with a view to stabilizing the sunnah: therefore they only incidentally contained traditions; their primary purpose was to serve as handbook for lawyers. The need for such works increased when the free development of the public religious life of the community was no longer hindered by the worldly regime of the Umayyads”.24

In the previous lines, we have seen that Schacht suspects the authenticity of a report regarding ‘UmarII’s command for the compilation of Ḥadīth. But, on the other hand, Goldziher accept this report as authentic. He speaks:

“This report is often quoted and frequently serves as a point of departure for the Islamic literary history of the hadith, and modern literary history also sometimes attributes a historical character to it. It is true that we hear enough of the zeal of ‘Umar II for the sunna, through which he hoped to initiate a new era after the irreligiousness of his predecessors. About his zeal to have hadiths written down and collected we have also another account, saying that ‘Umar II and individual groups of traditions written down, as for example those preserved by ‘Amra bint ‘Ubayd Allah b. Ka’b b. Mālik(d, 106) The caliph is also said to have ordered Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī to write down traditions.”

3.1.4.2 Reasons for Orientalists’ Objections Rgarding the Prohibition.

This common belief regarding the recording of ḥadīth was in fact a misunderstanding because of the misinformation provided by the traditionists.

The names of the pioneers in compiling the ḥadīth written by the traditionists belong to the mid second or the later half of the second century after Hijrah.

It is not clear who was the first who furnished this information, but later on all the scholars, even al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar, repeated the old statement without scrutinizing it, even though they themselves had provided ample evidence in their writings against this common belief.

This misconception of the recording of ḥadīth is due to these misunderstandings.

113

a. Misunderstanding of the words tadwīn, tasnīf , Kitābah which were takenin the sense of writing. b. The word Ḥaddathanā, Akhbaranā etc. which were generally believed to be used for oral transmission. c. The claim of the powers of unique memory of the Arabs, because of which they had no need to write down anything.

d. Aḥādīth against recording aḥādīth.

These points will be discussed systematically. a. Meanings and misunderstanding of the words tadwīn and tasnīf.

Tadwīn and tasnīf do not mean writing down. According to Tāj al- ‘Arūs, Dīwān means a collection of booklets, (Al- Dīwān Mujtama’‘ al- Ṣuḥuf). Tadwīn means collection ( Dawwanahu, Tadwīnan, Jama‘hu). And tasnīf means classification according to the subjects.

The statement that:

"اول من دون العلم ابنالشهاب الزهرى"25

was mostly understood and generally translated as meaning that the first who wrote down aḥādīth was al-Zuhrī; but he was neither the first recorder of aḥādīth nor the first compiler or composer, as we shall see later on.

3.1.4.3 Meanings of the Terms Ḥaddathanā and Akhbaranā:

The traditionists used the words Ḥaddathanā and Akhbaranā to relate the reports even if they were written or oral. But orientalists considered it as if these terms were used to relate the only oral transmissions not the written one’s. But the term Ḥaddathanā was used in a very wide sense by the traditionists. A student concludes this word while reading the book or any written text in front of his teacher. If a teacher read to his students from written text or from memory the same term was utilized to narrate the transmission of the reports. b. Unique memory of the Arabs.

It is a fact that all human beings do not have equal power of memory or ability. Any human capacity can be improved by exercise to a

114

certain extent. Arabs used to recite their poems from memory.They may have developed this power. There might have been some people with an excellent memory while others had a bad one. Therefore, to claim that depending on their powers of memory they did not need to write things down is disputable.

The traditionists used the words ḥadathanā and akhbaranā to relate the reports even if they were written or oral. But orientalist considered it as if these terms were used to relate the only oral transmission not the written ones. But the term ḥadathanā was used in a very wide sense by the traditionists. A student could use this word while reading the book or any written text in front of his teacher. If a teacher read to his students from written text or from memory the same term was used to narrate the transmission of their reports. “Some scholars applied different terms to these two different methods of learning. If the teacher reads to his students, then the students could use the word Ḥaddathanā whenever they transmitted that particular tradition, but if the student read to his teacher then he would use the term Akhbaranā. In general this difference was not strictly observed.26 c. The aḥādīth against writing down the aḥādīth.

There are three companions from whom we have received aḥādīth regarding the prohibition from writing the ḥadīth. Some scholars consider the saying of Abdullah bin ‘Umar as a hadith. But, that is neither a ḥadīth nor is concerned with this topic but his own saying.

Here we would like to write the aḥādīth from the Prophet forbidding the writing of aḥādīth transmitted by the companions.

1- Abu Said Alkhudri (d. 74, A.H.). The hadith transmitted by him has been written in different versions. i. In the first version Abu Said relates "ان رسولهللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم قال:"ال تكتبوا عنى ‘ومن كتب عنى غير القرآن فليمحه‘ وحدثوا عنى وال حرج‘ و من كذب على متعمدافليتببوا مقعده من النار"27 ii. In the next version he relates thus "ال تكتبوا عنى شيئا سوى القرآن‘ فمن كتب عنى شيئا سوى القرآن فليمحه"28 “Do not write from me anything except the Qurā’n and whoever has written anything from me other than the Qurā’n should erase it” 2- Abu Hurairah R.A. (d.58,A.H.) He says that the Holy Prophet said:

115

"ال تكتبواعنى االالقرآن فمن كتب عنى غيرالقرآن فليمحه‘ و حدثوا عن بنى اسرائيل وال حرج"29

In all the traditions written earlier except one from Abu Said Khudri, Abdul Raḥmān b. Zaid b. Aslam occurs who is a weak narrator in the eyes of the authorities. Ibn Hibbān says about him that he used to repeat aḥadith without complete knowledge about them and used to attach complete Isnāds to the interrupted ones so he cannot be trusted in.30 3- Zaid b. Thābit.

Third companion is Zaid b Thābit. His hadith is Mursal because the transmitter from Zaid is Muttalib b. Abdullah who did not meet Zaid. Therefore this tradition cannot be accepted.

Of all the traditions mentioned above only one hadith transmitted by Abu Said Khudri can be considered trustworthy. It reads “Do not write from me anything except the Quran and whoever has written anything from me other than the Quran should erase it”31

Even according to some of the scholars like Bukhārī (d 256, A.H.) it is the statement of Abu Said himself, that is erroneously attributed to the Prophet.32

3.1.4.4 Reasons for the Prophetic Prohibition from the Writing of Aḥādīth.

After all, if we consider this as a ḥadīth ofthe Holy Prophet then we shall have to conclude this debate with these reasons for the prohibition from writing down the ḥadīth.

i. This prohibition actually means that nothing should be written on the same page with the text of the Holy Qurā’n, Because the reader Might have the confusion that the text written in the margin or between the lines belonged to the Qurā’n.33 It must be kept in mind that Prophet’s prohibition of writing down the aḥādith was announced by him when it was the very early time of the social and educational growth of the Muslim community. People were unaware of the difference between the Prophetic words and the words of revelation. ii. The Holy Prophet knew through revelation that the followers of previous Prophets wrote notes beside the books of revelation and then mixed both of those texts. So they had left no awareness about what

116

were the words of God in the shape of scriptures and what were related to their Prophets other than the scriptures. In this way, they (Jews and Christians ) had gone astray in adhering to books other than the true revelation. It was the fear that the Holy Prophet felt that in the beginning, the written ḥadīth along with the Qurā’n would distract people from the Qurā’n. That is why it was important to avoid writing down the aḥādīth.34 iii. So great was the companion’s devotion to the hadith that Umar feared that the Qur’ān itself might be neglected.35 iv. The fear that people might come to rely too much on the written word, which is transient, after all, and not memorise those words they need to take to heart.36 v. The fear of traditions falling into the wrong hands or among non- authorised people (ila ghayr ahlihi37 This fear is assumed to have been the reason for some traditionists’ testamentary dispositions that their notes should be destroyed after their death.38

After all, we can conclude that the aḥādīth prohibiting the writing of aḥādīth were precautions required by initial circumstances to avoid mix of Quran with non-Qurā’nīc texts. On the other hand written Ṣaḥīfas from a vast number of companions prove that this prohibition was neither a common nor a permanent order but was for a limited time and circumstances.

3.1.4.1. Writing of Ḥadīth in Prophet’s Early Life and the Orientalist’s View point.

Before we present a vast number of aḥādīth allowing to write from the Holy Prophet, it seems necessary first to refute the objection of some orientalist’s regarding the prohibition from writing down the aḥādīth.

Goldziher, a well known orientalist, has refuted the hypothesis presented by some other orientalists. He speaks upon several times about the historical fact that the Holy Prophet permitted his companions to write down aḥādīth to save, preserve and transmit them to the coming generation.

Here are some of the passages in which he speaks about this reality.

117

“ It was wrongly Imagined for a long time that in the ealier generations of Islam also the view obtained that it was only the Koran that was destined to be written down and that the hadīth was to co-exist with it as oral teaching whose writing down had not been envisaged by its founders. This misleading false analogy, which also resulted in a number of other erroneous conceptions, was shown by a thorough investigation of the ḥadīth to be completely untenable.”39

He says more in these words “Rather can it be assumed that the writing down of the hādīth was a very ancient method of preserving it, and that reluctance to preserve it in written form is merely the result of later consideration. The oldest parts of the hadith material are presumably those of which it is said that they were already preserved in writing during the first decades. There is nothing against the assumption that the companions and disciples wished to keep the Prophet’s sayings and rulings from being forgotten by reducing them to writing. How could communities which preserved the wise sayings (hikma) of ordinary mortals in writing in Ṣaḥīfas have left the survival of the Prophet’s saying to the chance of oral transmission? Many a companion of the Prophet is likely to have carried his Ṣaḥīfa with him and used it to dispense instruction and edification to his circle. The contents of these Ṣaḥīfas were called matn al-ḥadīth; those who disseminated these texts named in succession their immediate authorities, and thus the īsnād came into being.”40

Moreover he says, “Otherwise Muslims would not have transmitted reports from early time from which it is evident that the Prophet himself had written down some sayings outside the Koran and that the writing down of non-Koranic sayings of the Prophet had begun quite early. Muhammed’s contemporaries are reported to have made a start in this. Abu Hurayra once said: ‘nobody can repeat more hadiths from the Prophet than I, unless it be ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As, for he wrote (them) down but I did not write. Such reports prove that the AṢḥāb al-hadīth did not reject the assumption that, even in the earliest times, sayings of the Prophet had been written down. And in fact we were able to consider in the first chapter a number of instances evidencing the existence of Ṣaḥīfas of traditions belonging to some of the companions’. Whatever may be the historical value of such statements, for they cannot be checked, it must nevertheless be assumed that the writing of hādīth was considered unobjectionable even in the first century. Since we find this an

118 undisputed practice towards the end of that century. We have seen before that the handing down of tradition on the bases of copy-books was considered natural in the times of al-Zuhrī”. 41

Moreover he unveils the reality that the theoretical quarrel among Muslims upon the issue neither stop nor affect the practice of writing down the aḥādīth. He is disclosing it in this way:

“The theoretical quarrel, which did not affect the practice, whether the ḥadīth might be preserved only as the subject of memory (hifz), or whether it was permissible to write it down, continued well beyond the time when critically sifted collections of traditions were already available, which without difficulty attained the rank of canonical texts. 42

Somewhere else he gives its reason that avoiding paper and book’ were the exception rather than the rule. He speaks in this style; “All the same it cannot be denied that, despite its general practice, the writing down of ḥādīths had its opponents. This dislike of writing was not there from the beginning, but was the result of prejudices which arose later. ‘Abd al- Raḥmān b. Harmalah al-Aslamī (d. 145) had to get special permission from his teacher Sa‘īd b. al- Musayyib to written down the ḥādīths that were told to him because his defective memory made him unable to retain them accurately word by word. But traditionists who avoided ‘paper and book’ at that time, and also later, were the exception rather than the rule.43

A. Solid Proofs for the Writing and Recording the Aḥādīth since the very Life of the Holy Prophet.

Under this topic we shall include the following proofs.

a. Prophetic aḥādīth allowing & proving the writing of aḥādīth of the Holy Prophet. b. Ṣaḥīfas written by The Companions c. Material of ḥādīth written in the second century after Hijra. d. Compilation of ḥādīth after the companions.

3.1.5.2. Prophetic Aḥādīth Allowing the Writing of Ḥadith of the Holy Prophet.

119

The Holy Prophet himself allowed his companions to preserve his aḥādīth in writing. Here some of such aḥādīth are presented. i- One of the companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) came to him and complained to him of his forgetfulness, upon which the Holy Prophet said: ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ "44 " ا ْستَع ْن بيَمين َك، َوأَْوَمأَ بيَده للْ َخ ط Seek help from your right hand and indicated to writing. ii- Rafe‘ b. Khadij (R.H) the famous companion of the Holy Prophet says. “ I said to the Holy Prophet (PBUH)we hear from you many things, Should we write them down?” He replied

"اكتبوا‘ وال حرج"45 “You may right. There is no harm.” iii- Sayyidunā Anas (R.A) reports that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) has said: "قيدوالعلم بالكتاب"46 “Preserve knowledge by writing.” iv- Sayyidunā Abu Rafe‘sought permission from the Holy Prophet(PBUH) to write aḥādīth. The Holy Prophet(PBUH) permitted him to do so.47 It is reported that the aḥādīth written by Abu Rafe‘ (R.A) were copied by other companions too. Salma, a pupil of Ibn ‘Abbās says:

"رأيت عبد هللا بن عباس معه ألواح يكتب عليها عن أبى رافع شيئا من فعل رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم"48 “I saw some small wooden boards with Abdullah Ibn ‘Abās. He was writing on them some reports of the acts of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) which he required from Abu Rafe‘ .”48 v- It was for this reason that he used to write aḥādīth frequently. He himseif says, "كنت أكتب كل شئى أسمعه من رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم وأريد حفظه‘ فنهتنيى قريش‘ وقالوا: أتكتب كل شئى تسمعهه من رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم ِ ه ِ ه ه َوَر ُسوُل ا هَّلل َصلى هللاُ عَلَيْه َو َسل َم بَ َشٌر يَ تَ َكل ُم ِِف 49" ال ِر َضا َوالْغَ َض ِب

" I used to write whatever I heard from the Holy Prophet(PBUH) and wanted to learn it by heart. Some people of the Quresh dissuaded me and said, “Do you write everything you hear from the Holy Prophet (PBUH)? , while He is a human being and Hespeaks in pleasure and anger"

120

They meant that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) might say something in a state of anger which he did not seriously intend. So, one Should be selective in writing his aḥādīth . ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr conveyed their opinion to the Holy Prophet (PBUH). In reply the Holy Prophet (PBUH) pointed to his lips and said: "والذي نفس محمد بيده ما يحرج مما بينهما إال حق‘ فاكتب"50 “I swear by the one in whose hands is the soul of Muhammad, nothing comes out from these tow (lips) except truth. So, do write.” It was a clear and absolute order given by the Holy Prophet to write each and every saying of him without any hesitation or doubt about its authoritative nature. In compliance to this order, Abdullah ibn ‘Amr wrote a large number of aḥādīth and compiled them in a book from which he named “Al Ṣaḥīfa al Ṣādiqah.”He kept this Ṣāḥifa saved even after the death of the Holy Prophet. It proves that the advice of the holy Prophet not to write anything except Qurā’n was dated earlier than his permission to write down his aḥādīth. If it had not been the case, Abdullah b. ‘Amr would have erased what he had written other than the holy Qurā’n. Some details about this book shall be discussed later under the topic of Ṣaḥāba’s written Ṣaḥīfas. vi. On the conquest of Makkah in 8th year after Hijrah, a Yemenite person, Abū Shah demanded the Holy Prophet some of his instructions in written form. Upon which the Holy prophet ordered his companions in these words. 51"اكتبوا ألبى شاه" “Write it down for Abū Shah.” vii. Finally the Holy Prophet, while suffering from the disease of which He met the Almighty, demanded a pen with a notebook from His companions to write some of His instructions to rescue His ummah from going astray. He said in these words: " ِ ِ ِ "52 ائْ تُوِّن بِكت َا ٍب أَ ْكتُ ْب لَ ُك ْم كتَاًب لَ ْن تَضلُّوا بَ ْع َدهُ “Take a notebook to me, I write for you some instructions after which you will never go astray.”

The Holy Prophet’s this demand is in favour of the idea that the Aḥādīth allowing the writing of Aḥādīth postdate those which indicate the prohibition of the writing of Aḥādīth. Also the dictation of different laws and letters of the Holy Prophet to various personalities and tribes in last years of his life support this theology.

121

3.2. Warning and Advice of the Holy Prophet in the Transmission of Ḥadīth.

Owing to the importance of ḥadīth as a second source of Islamic law, the Holy Prophet knew that its role eitherpositiveor negative would be very affective in the legal formation of Islam. Therefore, He (PBUH) warned companions in His very life about the upcoming disputes upon the authority of hadith and sunnah. He said:

"يوشك احدكم ان يكذبنى وهو متّكى على اريكته يحدث بحديثى فيقول بيننا وبينكم كتاب هللا فما وجدنا فيه من حال ٍل استحللناه وما وجدنا فيه من حرا ٍم ح ّرمناه اال وا ّن ما ح ّرم رسول هللا ما ح ّرم هللا "53

He also warned and advised them to be highly careful in its preservation. He said:

" ِ ِ "54 َم ْن َك َذ َب عَلَ هي ُمتَ عَ م ًدا، فَ لْيَ تَ بَ هوأْ َمْقعَ َدهُ م َن النهار “He who father’s lies on me may here and now select his resting place in help” Mughīra b. Sho‘ba narrates that he listened to the Prophet saying.”

Mughīra, a companion of the Holy Prophet listened to Him saying:

“To father lies on my name is not like using another name for this purpose. He who consciously fathers lies on me may here and now make his house in Hell.” 55

A large number of the companions had been advised by the Holy Prophet in the same words. Holy Prophet predicted the forgery in hadith and warned His companions to be careful in the defence and transmission of the traditions of the Holy Prophet. Once He said:

“There will be in later generations of my people persons who will narrate to you things which neither you nor your fathers have heard of, beware therefore of them ”56

3.2.1. Ṣaḥāba’s Precautionary Attitude Towards the Aḥadīth.

All the companions of the Holy Prophet were aware of the importance of ḥādīth and sunnah. So, every one was much careful in learning, preserving ang imparting the aḥādīth from the Holy Prophet. During His very life, His companions used to confirm from him His sayings reported by the people. Once Dimām b Tha’labah came to the Holy Prophet and said: “Muhammad, your

122 messenger came to us and told us…so and so” The Prophet replied, “He told the truth”57

Companions, in the light of the teachings of their leader, used to confirm the validity and authenticity of a report by requiring witnesses of that report. After the death of the Holy Prophet Abū Bakar, the first righteous caliph, used to demand from the reporter a witness of the report. According to Hakim al-Nishapuri, he was the first among those who defended the Holy Prophet’s sunnah from falsehood.58This credit goes to him because first of all he maintained certain strictness regarding the Holy Prophet.

Once a woman came to Abū Bakar to ask about the inheritance of a grandmother. Abū Bakar said to her “ I do not find any guidance about it in Qurā’n or Ḥadīth,I shall tell you after asking the people about it” When he asked the people, the companion Mughīra b. Shubah told him that according to Prophet’s Hadith a grand mother should be given one sixth of the inheritance. Abū Bakar demanded a witness of this report upon which Muhammad b. (Maslama) offered this witness and approved the report of Mughīra. After this Abū Bakar considered it a valid evidence and decided his verdict according to it.

‘Umer b. Khattāb, the second Caliph, following his predecessor, was also careful in the matter of hadith. Dhahbi said about Him:

"وهو الذى سن للمحدثين التثبت فىى النقل وربما كان يتوقف فى خبر الواحد إذا ارتاب" 59

“ And it is he who founded the trend of verification in narration (of ḥadīth) for the traditionists and sometimes he used to stand by (remained uninvolved /refrained from action) in the matter of a report reported by a single reporter when some doubt was involved”

He also used to demand a witness for the credibility of a report.

It is reported by Abu Said Khudrī that Abū Musa Asha‘rī knocked at the door of Umar’s house at three time’s. He returned after receiving no response from inside. ‘Umar sent a message behind him asking him “Why did you return from my house?” Abu Musa replied that he had listened to the Holy Prophet saying;

123

" ه ِ "60 إِذَا َسل َم أَ َح ُدُك ْم ثََلًًث فَ لَ ْم َُيَ ْب فَ لَْْريجع “When anyone of you say salām thrice, and received no reply, then he should return”

‘Umar demanded a witness from him for this report.

Abū Said related this story of Abū Musa in these words: Abū Musa came to us with inconsistant color on his face. We asked him the reason upon which he told us and asked whether we had listened to that ḥadīth (from the Holy Prophet)? We said that all of us had listened to this ḥadīth from the Holy Prophet and sent a man from us with Abū Musa who told ‘Umar and confirmed the ḥadīth. After writing this it is concluded by the writer,

"ففى هذا دليل على الخبر اذا رواه ثقتان كان اقوى وارجح مما انفرد به واحد"61

“Obviously there is a proof about ḥadīth that it would be more sound and authentic when narrated by two sound reporters than when a single individual report”

The companion ‘Alī used to take an oath with the receiving of a report from the reporter on the authority of the Holy Prophet. He himself says:

“When I listened to the Holy Prophet, God benefited me (from this ḥadīth) as he wished and whenever I received a ḥadīth from anyone else, I used to take an oath.”62

We find this type of investigation was taken into practice by Ubai b K‘ab, Abdullah b ‘Amr, Zainab wife of Ibn Mas’ud and others. In the light of these events, it can be claimed that the investigation or criticism of Ḥadīth started in simple form in the very life of the Holy Prophet. Companions tried their best to preserve and defend ḥadīth from fabrication.63

3.3. Ṣaḥīfās Written by The Companions During and after the Life of the Holy Prophet.

124

As discussed earlier, that the Holy Prophet had not only permitted but also persuaded his companions to write down his aḥādīth. In pursuance of this direction, the blessed companions of the Holy Prophet used to write aḥādīth, and a considerable number of them have compiled these writings in book forms.

Some examples are given below:

3.3.1. The Scripts of Abū Hurairah.

It is well-known that Abū Hurairah had narrated more aḥādīth than any other companion of the Holy Prophet. The number of aḥādīth reported by him is said to be 5374. The reason was that he, after embracing Islam, devoted his whole life for the sole purpose of hearing and preserving the aḥādīth of the Holy Prophet. Unlike the other famous companions, he did not employ himself in any economic activity. He used to remain in the Mosque of the Holy Prophet to hear what he said and to witness each event around him. He remained hungry, faced starvations and hardships. Yet, he did not leave the function he had undertaken.

There are concrete evidences that he had preserved the aḥādīth in written form. One of his pupils, namely, Hasan ibn ‘Amr reports that once:

Abu Huraira took him to his home and showed him “many books” containing the aḥādīth of the Holy Prophet.64

It shows that Abu Hurairah had many scripts of aḥādīth with him. It is also established that a number of his pupils had prepared several scripts of his narrations.

3.3.2. The Script of Abdullah Ibn ‘Amr

It has been stated earlier that Abdullah ibn ‘Amr was specifically instructed by the Holy Prophet to write aḥādīth. He, therefore, compiled a big script and named it “Al Ṣaḥīfah al Ṣādiqah” (The script of Truth).

Abdullah ibn ‘Amr was very precautious in preserving this script. Mujahid, one of his favourite pupils says, “I went to Abdullah ibn ‘Amr and took in hand a script placed beneath his cushion. He stopped me. I said, “you never save anything from me. He replied:

"هذه الصادقة ‘ ما سمعت من رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم ليس بينى و بينه أحد. إذا سلمت لى هذه وكتاب هللا والوهظ فال ابالى على ما كانت عليه الدنيا" 65

125

This is the “Ṣādiqah”(the Script of Truth). It is what I heard from the Holy Prophet. No other narrator intervenes between him and myself. If this script, the Book of Allah and Wht (his agricultural land) are secured for me, I would never care about the rest of the world.

This Script remained with his children. His grandson, Amr ibn Shuaib used to teach the aḥādīth contained in it. Yahya ibn Ma’in and Ali ibn al Madīnī have said that every tradition reported by ‘Amr ibn Shuaib in any book of aḥādīth has been taken from this script.66 Ibn al Athir says that this script contained one thousand aḥādīth.67

3.3.3. The Script of Anas.

Sayyidunā Anas ibn Malik was one of those companions of the Holy Prophet who knew writing. His mother had brought him to the Holy Prophet when he was ten years old. He remained in the service of the Holy Prophet for ten years during which he heard a large number of aḥādīth and wrote them down. Said ibn Hilal, one of his pupils say,

"كنا إذا أكثرنا على أنس بن مالك رضى هللا عنه فأخرج إلينا مجال عنده فقال: هذه سمعتها من النبى صلى هللا عليه وسلم فكتبتها وعرضتها"68

When we insisted upon Anas he would bring to us some note-books and say, “These are what I have heard and written form the Holy Prophet after which I have presented them to the Holy Prophet for confirmation.

It shows that Anas had not only written a large number of aḥādīth in several note books, but had also showed them to the Holy Prophet who had confirmed them.

These are only a few examples of the efforts made by the companions of the Holy Prophet for the compilation of aḥādīth. We do not intend here to present an exhaustive survey of such efforts. Detailed books can be consulted for this purpose. Our purpose here is to give only some examples. These concrete examples are more than sufficient to refute the fallacious assumption that the aḥādīth were never written in the days of the Holy Prophet and his companions.

3.4. Compilations of Ḥadīth Written in 1st Century of Hijrah.

126

There is a long list of the compilations of ḥadīth in the first century after hijra. Here neither it is necessary nor is being written that lengthy list of the compilations of Tabi’in because basically this thesis is to prove the writing of hadith in early days of Islam not to write the details of all the compilations. In that century, many books of aḥādīth were written. Some of them are as under:

i. Book of Khalid ibn Ma’dan (d.104).69 ii. Book of Abu Qilabah (d.104). He bequeathed his books to his pupil, Ayyūb Sakhtiyanī (68-131 A.H.), who paid about 15 Dirhams as a fare for them being loaded on a camel.70 iii. The script of Hammām ibn Munabbih.71 iv. Books of Ḥasan al BaṢri (21-110A.H.).72

3.5. Compilations of Ḥadīth in the Second Century A.H.

The basic characteristic of the books written in the second century is that a large number of them were arranged subject wise, while the books of the first century were not. However, compilations without due arrangement continued in this century too. The list of books compiled in this period is very long. Few prominent books are enlisted here.

i. Book of Abdul mailk ibn Juraij (d.150 A.H.) ii. Muwatta, of Malik ibn Anas (93-179 A.H.) iii. Maghazi of Muhammad ibn Ishaq (d. 151 A.H.) iv. Book of Said Ibn Abi Arubah (d. 156 A.H) list of the books on Hadith. v. Musnad of Rabī’ ibn Sabih (d. 160 A.H.).(73) 3.6. Methods of Carrying and Imparting Aḥādīth after the Companions.

The earlier mentioned techniques of the preservation of ḥadīth were taken into practice by the Holy Prophet and the companions. In the later generations, learned Muslims with the Knowledge of ḥadīth spread all over the extended Muslim world. In this way, collecting of knowledge required more extensive travling. As the sources of the traditions increased a lot, the methods of the collection and imparting the traditions also increased. These developed methods of learing and imparting the ḥadīth are being explained here. It and authenticated it as samā‘

3.6.1. Samā‘ :

127

Reading of teacher to the students is called Samā‘.It was the most common way of the transmission of traditions. The teacher used to recite the oral traditions and from their written material also. 3.6.2. ‘Arḍ: Reading of the text by the students to the teachers. Use of this method was also in practice at a large scale. Some of the traditionists approved it and authenticated it as samā.

3.6.3. Ijāza: Teacher’s permission to someone to narrate a ḥadīth or book on his (teacher’s) authenty.

3.6.4. Munawala: Sometimes the teacher gave a book or manuscript to his student with his permission to transmit it on his (teacher’s). 3.6.5. Kitabah or correspondence: The Shaykh writes or asks someone to write aḥādīth. Then, it is upto the will of the teacher weather he licences to his student for its transmission on his authority or not. 3.6.6. I‘lām: Shaykh informs his students with his indication to some of his booklet or written material containing the aḥādīth written by him. By receiving this indication, students tried to find this source of knowledge and used to transmit it with the permission of their Shaykh. 3.6.7. Wasiyyah: Sometimes the Shaykh entrusted his written material to some of his students. This written material was handed over to the student in the presence of the teacher or in his absence. For example Abu Qilabah (d.104) entrusted his books to Ayyub al-Sakhtiani. 3.6.8. Wijadah or Discovery: Sometimes, by chance, a student found some written material and identifies with the help of the style of hand writing that was similar to that his teacher. In this case, no permission of the teacher was provided to the student who occasionally found the writings of histeacher. It is why this method of imparting aḥādīth was not considered as recognized by the traditionists. It was compulsory for the transmitter of such material (Wajadah) to state openly that the

128

knowledge he described had been taken from the writings such a personality. A good number of such examples exist in the ḥadīth literature. The book of Sa‘d b. ‘Ubādah (d. 15 A.H.) is famous example of this sort.

3.7. Forgery in Ḥadīth and Muslim Attempts to Deal with It. 3.7.1. Beginning of Forgery in Ḥadīth and the Orientalists.

The opponents as well as misguided friends of Islam fabricated aḥādīth on a large scale and attributed them to the Holy Prophet. The opponents did this because of their enmity and prejudice with Islam, its followers and the Holy Prophet. According to Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, in no other genre of literature forgery is committed on such a large scale as in hadith and tafseer. There is a huge bulk of literature on fabricated aḥādīth in the history of Islamic literature which is a solid proof that Muslim scholars addressed this problem specially. On account of these forgeries in hadith, most of the partial orientalists consider the whole hadith literature unreliable. There is a difference of opinion on the date when the forgery was first originated in the history of Islam. William Muir, the famous orientalist says that it was first started in the caliphate of ‘Uthmān bin ‘Affān. He writes:

“ ‘Uthmān (when caliph) commanded saying: ‘It is not permitted to any one to narrate a tradition as from the Prophet, which he hath not already heard in the time of Abū Bakr or ‘Umar. And verily nothing hinders me from repeating traditions of the Prophet’s sayings (although I be one of those endowed with the most retentive memory amongst all his companions) but that I have heard him say, Whoever shall repeat of me that which I have not said, his resting-place shall be in Hell.’ This tradition, if well founded, gives pretty clear intimation that, even before ‘Uthmān’s murder, fabricated traditions were propagated by opponents to shake his authority, and that the unfortunate Caliph endeavoured to check the practice by forbidding the currency of traditions not already known in the reign of his two predecessors.”74

Muir and others who consider that the first forgery began in this age might be right if their observation is given the concept that regular, technical and rapid forgery got started in this age. But according to the writer’s observation and viewpoint, The first point when forgery in hadith started was the life-time of the Holy Prophet.

129

Ibn Hazm cites one incident which took place in prophetic Medina. After the Hijra, he tells us, a man went to an outlying district of Madina and told a tribe living there that the Prophet had given him authority over them. He used this trick because he wanted to marry a girl who was a member of that tribe. Hehad proposed that girl before the hijrah but she had not consented. The tribe sent a messenger to the Prophet to make enquiries concerning the ‘authority’ thus asserted in his name. The Prophet told them that the man was a pretender and had received no warrant for what he did.75

Muhammad Hashim Kamālī: also points out in this way: “During the caliphate of Abū Bakr, too, when apostasy had raised its head, it is not unlikely that some of the apostates should have forged such traditions as suited their purpose; and it may be for this reason that Abū Bakr and Umar were so strict in accepting traditions which were reported to them.76

These indications to fabrication are very rare and not so much affective as the series of later times. Later on during the caliphate of ‘Uthmān (R.A) people rose against him blaming him of favoring his Ummayyad family. In this way, during his life people dispersed into two major groups.

I- Those who opposed ‘uthmān with some complaints against him. This group consisted of two kind of people. a- Hypocrits demonstrating their internal prejudice and enemity against the splendor of Islam and its followers.

b- Those who were Muslims but were too immature to understand the hidden game of hipocrits behind this revolt against ‘uthmān R.A.

2- True Muslims who favored ‘Uthmān and tried their best to disentangle the problem created by the first group. These circumstances led to the ‘fitna’ described by Ibn Sirīn after which the scrutiny of narrators (īsnād) started.. Because the scrutiny of īsnād started after this Fitna, it can be said that one major factor of that Fitna was the fabrication of hadith. So it can be concluded that the technical, regular and rapid fabrication of hadith started in the caliphate of Ali R.A.

Who were the first technical and typical forgers in hadith?

Ibne Abī al-Ḥadīd says about the first fabrication from Shia. He writes:

130

“lies were introduced in Hadith on merits originally by Shi’a. They, in the beginning, fabricated many Aḥādīth in favour of their man motivated by enmity towards their opponents. When the spporters of Abu Baker found out what Shi’a had done they fabricated on their part Hadith in favour of their man.”77

3.7.2. Causes of Fabrication and Different Classes of Forgers:

Fabricated aḥādīth may be devided into these two types.

1. Intentional forgery in ḥadīth. These traditions are called Mauduat. 2. Unintentional fabrication. These sayings are named Batil. Both of these result the same. That is why the traditionists made no difference between them and collected them together. Fabrication in ḥadīth started because of various causes. Some most prominent of these are presented below :

3.7.2.1. Political & Religious Differences:

First of all, political and religious differences gave birth to the fabrication in ḥadīth. After the murder of ‘Uthmān’, the third Caliph, Muslim history witnessed a lot of ups and downs which weakened the political and religious basis of the unity of Muslim community and state. Battles between ‘Aish.a and Ali and later between Ali and Muā‘wīa led the Muslim community distributed in three major groups: A. Ahl-e-Sunnat B. Shia’ C. Khawarij. All of these became worst enemies to one an other. Differences among all of them were so severe that they started to oppose one an other’s all the theories, political, religious and social. This opposition and enmity caused Shia’n-e- Ali to produce fake traditions to strengthen their political and religious thoughts. They fabricated ahadith against the views of their opponents also. According to Ibn Al-Ḥadīd the trend of fabrication was settled by the Shian-e-‘Alī: 78

The most well known tradition fabricated by Shi‘a is that of Ghadir Khumm. It speaks:

“The Prophet took hold of ‘Alī’s hand in the presence of the companions, on his way back from the farewell Hajj. He let him stand till

131

all of them knew him. Then he said: This is my attorney and brother and the caliph after me. So listen to him and obey him.”79

Iraq was famous in this type of fabrication that’s why ‘Aisha had to speak about the people of Iraq:

“O people of ‘Iraq, the people of Sham (Syria) are better than you. A great number of the companions of the Prophet went to them. So they reported to us what we know. But to you a small number of them went. But you reported to us what we know and what we did not.”80

“A report about Mukhtār al Thaqafī is reported that reads: “Invent a Ḥadīth on the authority of the Prophet saying that I would be the Caliph after him who would ask vengeance for his son. If you do you would receive ten thousand Dirham, a fine dress, an animal to ride and a servant to serve. The man refused to do so on the authority of the Prophet but he accepted his offer with less money to fabricate on the authority of the companion.’’81

‘Abd al-Raḥmān b al-Mahdi reported to Mālik that the amount of Hadith he heard in Madīna during forty days was no more than what he heard in ‘Iraq in one day. On hearing this, Mālik remarked (addressing the people of Iraq):

“From where did you get this coinage? You make it at night and let it circulate the following day.”82

But it does not necessarily mean that there was no one to check this tendency. Traditionists like Qatāda, Yahya b Abi kathīr, Sa‘īd b Abi’ Arūbā, Shu’ba b al-Hajjāj, Ma‘mar b Rashid, Ḥammād b Salama, Jarīr b Hazim and Hishām al-Dastāwai at Basrā and Ibn Isḥāq al-A‘mash, Thaūrī, Ibn ‘Uyaina and Isrāīl at Kūfa were known to be prominent figures in this field.83

3.7.2.2. Story-Tellers.

Story-telling is an ancient way to attract the public and be praised by the audience as a good speaker and preacher. The story- tellers used this weapon to preach the people through incredible events and attractive exposition in the Mosques. They used to present them with full īsnād to give credence to their stories. The traditionists rejected such story-based traditions with full strength of their professionalism in their field of the science of Hadith. Sulaiman b Mehran

132 al-Amash, entered one of the mosques of Basra where he heard a story-teller saying.

“A’mash reported to us on the authority of Abu Ishaq who reported from Abu Wa’il…..etc.’’ On hearing this A’mash seated himself in the middle of the circle and started pluking hairs from his armpit. The story-teller was much annoyed and said: Shame! What are you doing while we are discussing matters of knowledge? A’mash replied: I am doing better than what you are. He Said: How? A’mash replied: Because I am doing what is Sunnah while you are telling a lie. I am A’mash and I reported nothing of the sort you are saying.’’84

It is said that a preacher was interpreting this verse.

85" " عَ َسى أَ ْن يَ بْ عَثَ َك َربُّ َك َمَقاًما ََمْ ُموًدا “Soon will thy lord raise thee to a station of praise and glory” He was saying that the Almighty will give the Prophet a seat very next to himself on his thrown. When this explanation was reported to Muhammad b Jarīr al-Tabarī(d. 310 A.H/922 A.D), he rejected this theory and wrote on his door.”

سبحان من ليس له انيس وال له فى عرشه جليس

“Glorified is he who has neither a companion nor anyone sitting beside him on the throne.”

After that Ṭabarī was opposed by such story-tellers so severely that in agitation, they threw stones on his door.86

3.7.2.3. Prejudice Based on Devotion to One’s Town, Race or Imām. Much of the data in ḥadīth literature is fabricated because of this prejudice. Observing one another, people entered into the race to fabricate traditions in favor of their own places, races or Imams. They also invented aḥādīth against the dignity of places, races or imams related to their opponents. Aḥādīth on the merits of Jeddah, Basra, Jordan, Khurasan, Uman, ‘Asqalan, Qizwin, Nasibin, ‘Ibadan (‘Iraq) and condemning Constantinople, Tabariya, Antioch, the burnt city, and San’a comprise a large section in Ibn ‘Iraq’s work.87

133

Traditions based on the merits of Arab territory :

The best instance of such fabrication is the tradition in which the Holy Prophet is reported to have said;

“Love the Arabs for three reasons: I am an Arab. The Quran is in Arabic and the people of paradise will converse in Arabic.”88 In another instance it is said: “The one who has nothing to give as charity should curse the Jews instead.”89

Following fabrication will illustrate the praise for one’s imam and prejudice against others. It is attributed to the Holy Prophet of having said:

“There shall be in my ummah a man by the name Muhammad b Idrīs (i.e.al-Shāfi‘ī) who will be more dangerous to my Ummah than Iblis and there shall be a man in my Ummah known as AbūḤanīfa who is the lamp of my Ummah.”90 3.7.2.4. Ignorant Ascetics:

There lived in every period of Islamic history truth loving, God fearing as well as scrupulous traditionists who neither looked at the activities of religious or political parties nor they saw towards the individual personalities or public opinion. The only purpose of their educational activities was to learn and propagate aḥādīth. Their piousness, sincerity, and propagate for hadith was out of question. But unfortunately, many of the pious traditionists unknowingly took part in the forgery of hadith for pious purpose. They realized that people were turning their intention towards the worldly affairs and were ignoring the Qur’ānic and Prophetic teachings. So, they made plan to fabricate new Aḥādīth with the name of the Holy Prophet to attract and encourage the people to turn their intention towards the Islamic teaching to possess their houses in paradise after the day of judgment. People of this type accepted that Prophet had said:

"من كذب عل ّي متع ّمدا فليتب ّوأ مقعده من النار "91

“Whoever speaks lie against me intentionally, should reserve his seat in the fire.” But they remarked: “We did not speak lie against Him but for Him instead.”

People like Maisrah b’ Abd Rabbīh and Abū Ismā Nūḥ b Abī Maryam al- Marwazī used to invent Ḥadīth on the marits of each Sura of the Qur’ān. The later justified his act by saying:

134

“I found people deserting the Qur’ān and accupying themselves with Fiqh of Abu Ḥanīfa and Maghāzī (battle) of Ibn Isḥāq, So I invented these Aḥādīth for the sake of reward (from Allah).92

3.7.2.5. Sayings of Wisdom Turned into Ḥadīth:

Some of the people held a view that the Holy Prophet might be credited with ascribing to him more and more wise sayings. So it became their task to find sayings of wisdom and attribute them to the Holy Prophet so that people may regard the Holy Prophet as the wisest man of the world. For example people ascribed to the Holy Prophet the Following saying of Ḥarīth b. Kalda, a Well- known Doctor in Arab:

“The abdomen is the house of disease and prevention is the head of remedies.”93

There are some other personal motives for the fabrication. Khatīb Al- Baghdādī has related a tradition fabricated for personal motives. This Ḥadīth is report on the authority of Saif b. ‘Umar al-Tamīmī Who related:

“I was sitting by Sa‘īd b Tarif When his son came from the Maktab (i.e. the Qur’ānic school) crying. He said: What made you cry? The child replied: The teacher has beaten me. Sa‘īd said: Let me disgrace him today.

‘Ikrimah reported to me on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās referring back to the Prophet who said: The teachers of your children are the worst among you. They have least mercy upon orphans and are the hardest among you towards the poor. 94

Hadith regarding the merits of a variety of vegetables agains could easily be traced back to those who were dealing in trade of these vegetables.

Ibn Qayyim in his book on the spurious aḥādīth known as ‘al-Mannār al- Munīf fi al-Saḥīḥ wa al-Ḍa‘if,has given such ḥadīth regarding the advantages of different vegetables and fruits.

Only one example from his book is quoted here. “Use the pumpkin as it brightens the head and use the lentils as it has been glorified by seventy apostles.”95

3.7.2.6. Fabrication to Please the Rulers and the Orientalists.

135

It is not less than a universal truth that pleasure of the rulers was also a very prominent motive for the fabrication of ḥadīth. Muslims admit this reality in its real shape that some opportunists fabricated Aḥādīth just for the pleasure of some rulers to get some reward from them. But the orientalists, as usually, contrary to the facts, crossed the real footing of this issue and exaggerated in presenting the details of this motive in the fabrication of ḥadīth.

The Muslim side present this motive in the report of Yahya b Ma‘īn’ that reads:

“Giyath b Ibrāhīm al Nakh‘i al-Kūfī came to the court of caliph Mahdi who was very fond of pigeons. In that sitting he had some pigeons with him too. Giyath was asked to say any ḥadīth to the Caliph. He said: so and so reported to me that the Prophet had said: ‘No competition is allowed except that of shooting by arrows, racing of camels and horses or flying of pigeons.’ Mahdī allowed a reward to be given to him, but when he left, Mahdī said: I bear witness that your nape is that of a liar against the Prophet. Then Mahdī expressed in repentence: ‘I made him do so. And ordered the pigeons to be slaughtered and then he abandoned this practice completely.”96

The same motive is prominent in this report: Muqāṭil b Sulaimān, a famous in the name exegetical literature of Qur’ān, used to fabricate aḥādīth to please the house of Abbasids. “Abū‘Ubaidullah , a minister of Mahdī said: Mahdī once told me: “Don’t you see this fellow(i.e, Muqatil) who keeps on asking me: If you wish, I may fabricate Aḥādīth in the merit of ‘Abbās’. And I told him: I don’t require one at all.”97

It is the style of Muslims to highlight the forgery just to avoid the forged collection of such traditions. But, on the contrary, the orientalists adopt the critical but propagating style just to show that as the forgery in traditions was possible, that’s why no hadith can be assumed safe from forgery. And, so on, the whole collection of aḥādīth are fabricated and worth less.

3.7.3. Is Islamic Literature Borrowed from Pre-Islamic Religions and Customs?

One of the most prominent objections of modern orientalists against Islam is that most of the ritual literature of Islam has been borrowed from ancient religions as Judaism, Christianity and Arab traditions.The same objection is repeated regarding the themes of hadith literature that they have been influenced by other religions and customs. In expressing this objection they have followed the Arab pagans of the time of the holy

136

Prophet who’s attitude towards the Holy Qur’ān is explained by the Almighty in this verse of the Holy Qur’ān:

ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِِ ٍ ِ ِ ِ "َومنْ ُه ْم َم ْن يَ ْستَم ُع إِلَيْ َك َوَجعَلْنَا عَلَى قُ لُوِب ْم أَكنهةً أَ ْن يَ ْفَقُهوهُ َوِِف آَذَاْن ْم َوقْ ًرا َوإِ ْن يَ َرْوا ُكله آَيَة ًَل ي ُْؤمنُوا ِبَا َح هَّت إِ َذا َجاءُوَك َُيَادلُونَ َك هِ ِ ِ 98 يَ ُقوُل الذي َن َكَف ُروا إ ِ ْن َه َذا إِهًل أَ َساطريُ اْْلَهول َني" “And among them are some who listen to your discourse on practical divinity and to the Qur’ān when you recite it, not to profit by it but to pick holes in it and be able to tell their evil minds. The fact is that We have closed their hearts’ ears and deafened their ears to reason. They just would not apprehend with their senses any revelation or any sign no matter how convincing to the mind they be. And when they come to you O Muhammad they do not humble themselves but in arrogance they are more ready to argue than to obey. Vested with infidelity, they interpret their thoughts in words: «This is nothing», they say, «but fables of old».”

As it has already been explained in the second chapter that the first basic and authentic source of law in Islam is the Holy Qur’ān. Other sources like Ḥadīth, Analogy (Qiyās) and Consensus (Ijma‘) etc. are its various branches that revolve around it but never go contrary to its divine spirit. The Holy Qur’ān verifies the original dogmas of pre- Islamic divine scriptures that had been altered by the religious leaders. In this way the Holy Qur’ān contains and confirms those ideas of the scriptures originally revealed by Allah Almighty. Allah Almighty says:

ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ هِ ِِ "َولَهما َجاءَُه ْم كتَا ٌب م ْن عنْد ا هَّلل ُم َص د ٌق ل َما َمعَُه ْم َوَكانُوا م ْن قَ بْلُ يَ ْستَ ْفت ُحوَن عَلَى الذي َن َكَفُروا فَ لَهما َجاءَُه ْم َما عََرفُوا َكَفُروا به ِ ِ 99 فَ لَْعنَةُ ا هَّلل عَلَى الْ َكافِري َن" “And when there came to them (the Jews) a book (this Qur’ān) from Allah, confirming what is with them (the Taurat and Injeel), although aforetime they had invoked Allah (for coming of Muhammad PBUH) in order to gain victory over those who disbelieved in it. So let the curse of Allah be on the disbelievers.”

Now we shall turn to the alleged sources of Islamic literature pointed out by the orientalists. Their claim is: “The Mohammaden common law is by no means divine or superhuman.”100

Here we shall quote and answer all of their objections one by one.

137

3.7.3.1. Pre-Islamic Arab Customs and the Islamic Literature.

Margoliouth, in his article on the words ‘Muslim’ and ‘Ḥanīf’ pays full attention to prove that Musaylimah was the first in Arabia who originated the concepts ‘Muslim’ and ‘Ḥanīf’ and Muhammad stole these concepts from him.101

Charles Lyall denies Margoliouth’s opinion in the light of historicity and logic. He opines that Margoliouth’s opinion would indicate to the supposition that (Musaylimah’s teaching should, for a considerable time before the appearance of Muhammad, have attained such a celebrity and extension in the Arabian Peninsula that, although the tribe to which he belonged had its settlements in al-Yamamah, …the ideas embodied in it had made their way across to the Western Ḥijāz and Tihamah, and these left in current use these words of religious import, without any trace surviving in the memory of men of their real origin.102

“He then questions the rational for Musaylimah waiting some nine or ten years after the Hijrah (9 or 10 AH) before posing a challenge to Muhammad if the ‘original ideas’ were his and ‘stolen’ Historically, Lyall points out, only two poets of the Banū Hudhayl were known to have used the concept Ḥanīf in their poetical literature during Muhammad’s time. He names these as Sakhr as-Ghayy and Abu Dhu’ayb. Sakhr, he says, was most probably a pagan, while Abū Dhu’ayb was a Muslim born in 622 CE.”103

‘He cites Welhausen, pointing out the deputation of Hunafa’ which paid a courtesy call on Muhammad were Chritian and had the institution of priesthood. Lyall then deduces that, ‘with Christianity in possession, before the appearance of Musailimah as a Prophet, it is difficult to believe the propagator of the religious movement represented by the ‘Ḥanīfs’104He subjects to critical linguistic analysis the words ‘ Ḥanīf’ and ‘Muslim’ and rejects Margoliouth’s reasoning as a very singular example of extravagant Conjecture’ 105

‘Despite all of this, Margoliouth rejects any idea of Islam being close to Christianity. When Foster, in an article, suggests that Islam might be called a ‘Christian heresy’, 106Margoliouth spurns the idea, arguing that at best it could be closer to Judaism at least in its earlier stages.107 However, Foster had to submit to Margoliouth’s acclaimed, immense knowledge’ 108

3.7.3.2. Islam has Stolen Many of its Major Ideas from Judaism.

William Muir claims: “It must have been about this time that Mahomet obtained a closer acquaintance with Jewish history and tradition, either from those whom he met at the season of pilgrimage, or some Hebrew captive detained at Mecca. The chapters of the

138

Coran belonging to this period begin to teem with lengthy narratives of the creation, fall, flood etc. as also of the patriarchs, kings and prophets, all betraying an intimate acquaintance with Jewish lore.” 109

Alfred Guillaume also maintains that the Prophetic aḥādīth contain many ideas borrowed from Judaism. He states “The presence of folk-lore and fable whose heathen origin was well-known to the learned could not but excite contempt, and the hadith which were directly borrowed from Haggada (part of Jewish literature containing historical events) and Christian legend were especially vulnerable to attack.”110

Both Muir and Alfred try their best to prove that the ideas which the Holy Prophet (PBUH) used to preach were originally taken from Judaism as well as from Christianity in his childhood and youth. But real history disproves it, as no contemporary book mentions any tutor or any religious literature having any concern with the teachings of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). On the contrary, it proves their claims to be baseless and based on their personal speculation and mere imagination.

It is a fact that the Jews were bitter enemies of Jesus Christ and his cause but the Holy Prophet was one of his great admirers. Dr. Henry Stubbe reveals the true picture of the Prophet’s relation with Christ and the Jews. He points out: “On the other hand, had a Jew been his instructor, he would not have been, as he undoubtedly was, so great an admirer of Isa, of which he makes so great and so frequent declarations, saying that Isa was his predecessor, and taught the same doctrine.”111

R.V.C. Bodley also refuses to accept Muir and Alfred’s statements by saying: “In spite of the many ancient traditions and doctrines which he now expounded, the common complaint that Muhammad plagiarized the Bible is untrue. He had never seen it with the possible exception of fragments of Waraqa’s incomplete version. There was no Bible for him to see. It is, moreover, most unlikely that he saw these. The earliest official Arabic translations of the Old and New Testaments were made centuries after Muhammad’s death.”112

Having proven these allegations wrong, let’s move on to another common objection of the orientalists.

3.7.3.3. Christian Beliefs Merged in Islamic Literature.

In these lines, we shall examine the claims of orientalists and try to reach a precise conclusion. A reknowned scholar, Richard Bell, gives the story of the early history of the development of Islamic literature and the circumstances in which Christian literature entered into the Islamic Literature, especially in the genre of hadith literature. He writes

139

“The great influx of Christian converts to Islam, which took place in the end of the first and the beginning of the second century of the Hijra, naturally brought Christian popular ideas with it. These converts did not entirely change their spirit by changing the name of their religion. It has been even asserted that it was they who brought into Islam the spirit of partisanship and bigotry to which they themselves had been so long accustomed. Of that it would be unfair to lay the whole or even the main blame upon them. Islam in the beginning was tolerant in a sense. So long as the Christians submitted and paid the tribute they were not very much molested, and even enjoyed a considerable amount of liberty. But that was because the Umayyad Caliphs and Governors were not so much religious leaders as worldly rulers. As the religious system took deeper hold, Islam would probably of itself have developed a stricter spirit. But these Christian converts must have brought with them much that belonged to their former faith. The collections of Moslem Traditions contain many stories and sayings which are evidently of Biblical and Christian origin. It was natural that the early Moslems should show keen interest in the Bible, and their discussions with Christians would help to make them familiar with the contents of Scripture. Still, I think it was by way of popular importation that much of the Christian material in the traditions came”113

He gives many examples of traditions which, according to him, have been taken into circulation from the Christian ritual literature. He points out:

“Thus we find quite a number of sayings both from the old Testament and from the new, reported as having been spoken by Muhammad. On the authority of Abu Huraira, upon whom a large proportion of these pious and edifying sayings are fathered, the Prophet is reported to have commended, “The man who gives alms, but hides it so that his left hand does not know what his right hand does.”On the same authority, the Prophet is reported to have said: One of you does not really believe until I am dearer to him than father or son”,a reminiscence probably of the Gospel saying: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.” I need not continue citations of these. It was natural that these things should find their way into collections of sayings of the Prophet”114 Gold Ziher also speaks in the same tune: He writes:

“The fact that Islam regarded Christianity as a religion from which something could be learnt, and did not disdain to borrow from it, is acknowledged by the Muslim theologians themselves, and the early elements of Hadith literature offer us a great wealth of examples which show readily the founders of Islam borrowed from Christianity”115

Goldziher spares about nineteen pages of his book to prove with examples that a large part of hadith has been taken from the New Testament. Will Durant argues in these words “ Many of the traditions put a new color upon the Moslem creed. Mohammad had

140 not claimed the power of miracles, but hundreds of pretty traditions told of his wonder- working: how he fed a multitude from food hardly adequate for one man; exorcised demons; drew rain from heaven by one prayer, and stopped it by an other; who he touched the udders of dry goats and they gave milk; who the sick were healed by contact with his clothes or his shorn hair. Christian influences seem to have molded many of the traditions; love towards one’s enemies was inculcated, though Muhammad had sterner views; the lord’s prayer was adopted from the gospels; the parables of the sower, the weeding guests, and the laborers in the vineyard were put into Mohammad’s mouth; all in all, he was transformed into an excellent Chridtian, despite his nine wives” 116

William Muir points out that Muhammad (PBUH) was taught some Christian beliefs by Baḥīra (a Christian monk) on his visit to Syria with his uncle when he was twelve or fourteen. He raises the objection in these words: “He would have left Mahomet, now twelve years of age, behind; but when the caravan was on the point of starting, the lad clung to his protector, and Abu Talib, moved by his entreaty, took him with him. The journey stretched to Bosra, perhaps still further north. It lasted several months, and Mahomet had thus the opportunity of seeing the Christian people of Syria, with their churches and their worship. However sunk in superstition, these must have stood out in strong contrast with the rude and barbarous rites of the Meccan valley, and furnished food for his inquiring and reflective mind.”117

Muir gives this journey and such a limited stay for taking a meal, a color of an informative and educational visit to an ‘area (or culture) study centre.’ A similar tone is seems in the remarks of Bodley: “Near the Bosra market was a monastery of Nestorian Monks – Christians. They knew AbūṬāleb and offered him and his nephew hospitality. One of the monks, whose name was Baḥīra, took a special interest in Muhammad. His inquiring mind, his eagerness for knowledge, his lucid thoughts impressed him. He talked to the Arab, say as if he was a contemporary. He told him about the creed of the followers of Christ. He denounced idolatry. Muhammad listened. All that this man was giving him was so strange, so different from what he had been brought up to believe.” 118

Both the statements can be concluded in the following points:

• Muhammad (PBUH) travelled to Syria at the age of twelve in eagerness to learn as much as possible about the culture, social traditions and religious dogmas of Christianity. • He achieved his tasks and made this visit very informative and a strong initiative for his future life to become a great religious lawgiver.

In accordance with logic and living history, both the claims can be refuted by the following.

141

• Was He (PBUH) able to speak and understand the foreign language of Syria and religious terms of Christianity? If not, in which language did Baḥīra briefed him? • Can a boy of just twelve or fourteen preserve a so vast and deep religious system listened to in a period less than or equal to an hour? • Did Muhammad (PBUH) express any of the ideas and beliefs after his journey until the Prophethood?

In fact, no orientalist can give a satisfactory answer to any of the above mentioned questions to prove Muir and Bodley statments. Owing to the fallacy and irrationality of the claims of these orientalists, Thomas Carlyle denies them in these words: “I know not what to make of that Sergious, the Nestorian monk, whom AbūṬāleb and he (Muhammad PBUH) are said to have lodged with; or how much any monk could have taught one still so young. Probably enough it is greatly exaggerated, this of the Nestorian monk. Mahomet was only fourteen; had no language but his own; much in Syria must have been a strange unintelligible whirlpool to him.” 119

In these pages we have analyzed that almost all the objections of the orientalists are baseless, illogical and irrational and contradict the biographical history of the Arabs. Such objctions had been made neither by Muslims nor non-Muslims before the foundation of the “Well-Organized Movement of Orientalism” in twelfth century A.D. Not only history proves them wrong, but some reasonable orientalists have also refuted them in clear words. The discussion naturally leads us to the conclusion that the basic fountain of Islamic teachings and faith is divine revelation and it is a self-empowered theological system. Neither early scriptures nor any religious instructor of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) made up this complete code of life.

3.7.4. General Explanatory Reply to the Objections of Orientalists.

All of the objections and claims of the orientalists mentioned above can be refuted by the following explanations. 3.8. Basically all the Divine Religions have the Same Teachings.

History of the world religions proves that all the religions, which have been revealed by the Almighty, possess the same basic themes and teachings. Oneness of God, Prophethood, faith of good and bad fate, theory of life, death and the day of Judgment. It is because that the basic source and origin of all of them are the same. And it is quite natural to ask that how the same authority can issue different types of teachings that differ and contrast to each other? Therefore, Islam has never claimed of having the teachings different from those of the previous religions but

142 on the other hand Islam announces that its teachings are a continuation of the teachings of the previous religions that got started from the ever first religion revealed to the ever first man and Prophet in this world. But Islam goes further on this topic and reveals the fact that the religion of each previous Prophet was named ‘Islam’ as of Muhammad the last Prophet. So, from the teachings of Islam mentioned earlier, it is clear that the mission of God to send Prophets to the humanity has always been to remind people to continue the existing Divine teachings. Therefore, if God is one, then his message must invariably one even though the mode or tone of it might differ from one epoch to an other. Therefore, it is sinful and not justified in Islam to prefer some Prophets on the others. And, one’s faith is questionable if he regards some messengers and decreases the dignity of other Prophets. It therefore stands to reason that God speaks to Prophet ‘x’ and reveals the same issue to Prophet ‘y’, albeit with some variations. If such variations are so serious that they amount to a completely different message, it could be argued that a thorough check has to be made of the form in which the old version has existed over the years. Therefore, it would not be so odd if the teachings of Islam resemble the teachings of the previous religions because the main and basic points of the teachings of Islam and the previous religions are same and identical. Islam claims that the Holy Quran confirms and certifies the unaltered parts of the teachings of the previous religions and also preserves the original subjects and concept of those religious scriptures in which changes had occurred in the previous times. Islam has addressed the followers of Christianity and Judaism in the same background. The holy Quran reads:

"قُ ْل يَا أَ ْه َل ا ْل ِكتَا ِب تَعَا َل ْوا إِ َلى َك ِل َم ٍة َس َوا ٍء بَ ْينَنَا َو َب ْي َن ُك ْم أَ هال نَ ْعبُ َد إِ هال هَّللا َ َو َال نُ ْش ِر َك بِ ِه َش ْيئًا َو َال يَته ِخ َذ َب ْع ُضنَا بَ ْع ًضا أَ ْربَابًا ِم ْن ُدو ِن ه َِّللا َفإِ ْن تَ َو هل ْوا َفقُولُوا ا ْش َه ُدوا بِأَ هنا ُم ْس ِل ُمو َن "120 “Say to them: “O you Ahl al-Kitāb, let us come to terms to agree among ourselves that we venerate and worship no one but Allah and that we shall not incorporate with Him other deities. Nor shall any of us take another for a godhead or a tutelary guardian besides Allah. If they turn a deaf ear and insist upon hugging their irreverent conviction to their hearts, then say to them: Do then bear witness that we conform our will to Allah’s blessed will, and this reflects conformity to Islam.” Quran says about its act of certifying and confirming the unaltered concepts of the previous scriptures. It says: ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ 121 " نَ هزَل عَلَيْ َك الْكتَا َب ب ْْلَِ ق ُم َص دقًا ل َما بََْني يََديْه َوأَنْ َزَل الته ْوَراةَ َواِْْلْْني َل" Quran explains further:

143

ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ هِ ِ ٍ ِ ِ ِ ِ 122 "َوُم َص دقًا ل َما بََْني يََد هي م َن الته ْوَراة َوِْلُحله لَ ُك ْم بَ ْع َض الذي ُح ِرَم عَلَيْ ُك ْم َوجئْ تُ ُك ْم ِِبَيَة م ْن َرب ُك ْم فَاته ُقوا ا هَّللَ َوأَطيعُون" “And to bring matters to completion-, It shall be my duty to Allah to corroborate your faith in AL-Tawrah which is set before me and to make lawful to you some of what was forbidden before. Now, I have come to you with convincing divine evidence which exacts your reverence for Allah and obedience to me”

The Almighty addressed the Christians and Jews to make them believe in the Holy Quran that certified what they had with them. The Almighty said: " ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ " 123 ََي أَي َُّها الهذي َن أُوتُوا الْكتَا َب آَمنُوا ِمبَا نَ هزلْنَا ُم َص دقًا لَما َمعَ ُك ْم ... “O you to whom the Book had been given (Ahl al-Kitab) Give credence to the Book (the Quran) We have revealed to Our Messenger Muhammad, corroborating and authoritatively validating the authentic Book (AL-Tawrah) you hold in possession,” The Almighty speaks more about this role of the Holy Quran. He says: " ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ "124 َوأَنْ َزلْنَا إِلَيْ َك الْكتَا َب ِب ْْلَِ ق ُم َص دقًا ل َما بََْني ي ََديْه م َن الْكتَا ِب َوُمَهيْمنًا عَلَيْه... “And We have sent down to you O Muhammad the Quran confirming the Scriptures revealed before it )AL-Tawrah and AL-Injil( and serving as the Book of reference for matters disputed among Ahl AL-Kitab, for it is the umpire of all preceding Scriptures,…” A. All the concepts and questions included in the Bible cannot be said and confirmed of having been preserved from the original and first hand evidence. It is not the mere statement of the writer, but it is a historical fact stretched throughout the literary history of the Biblical literature. Not only the impartial historians and Muslims but also the orientalists from Christians and Jews admit that the Biblical literature, the old as well as the new testament could not be preserved in the original shape as they were revealed from the Almighty. They rightly say that there is a huge gap of time between the time of Christ and the writers of these five scriptures (new testament ). It is a reality on the record of world history that after the death of Christ, the followers of Christianity distributed into several sects who carried on quarrelling with one another for a long time. Each of these sects had its own scriptures according to their faith and theory different from those scriptures which were possessed by the other sects. In the end, Saint Paul and his followers reached the dominating position.Their faith and views got popularity among the people and the other sects had left no more energy to face the popularity of the sect of Saint Paul and its faith.Finally it happened that the scriptures which were, according to Saint Paul’s faith, accepted and approved and all of the remaining were rejected and were ordered

144

to be finished. A Frances orientalist Maurice Bucaille opens the veil of this historical reality in these words: “As for as the decades following Jesus’s mission are concerned, it must be understood that events did not at all happen in the way they have been said to have taken place and that Peter’s arrival in Rome in no way laid the foundations of the Church. On the contrary, from the times Jesus left earth to the second half of the second century, there was a struggle between two factions. One was what one might call Pauline Christianity and the other Judeo Christianity. It was only very slowly that the first supplanted the second, and Pauline Christianity triumphed over Judeo- Christianity.”125 He writes more about the quarrel between two fighting sects of Christianity in this way. “For those Judeo-Christianity who remained “Loyal Jews” Paul was a traitor: Judeo- Christian documents call him an “enemy” accuse him of “tactical double dealing…..until 70 A.D, Judeo-Christianity represents the majority of the Church, and Paul remains an isolated case. The head of the community at that time was james, a relation of Jesus. With him were Peter (at the beginning) and John. James may be considered to represent the Judeo-Christian camp, which deliberately clung to Judaism as opposed to Pauline Christianity. Jesus’s family has a very important place in the Judeo-Christian Church of Jerusalem.”126 The passages mentioned above clarify that there has been no consensus among the Christian people upon the originality and authenticity of the present set of scriptures or the those which were finished. But rather the originality and authenticity of the finished scriptures was for better and credible than that of the present one’s because those were written by the companions and followers of Christ while on the other hand the present set of scriptures is written by the companions and followers of Saint Paul who remained an open enemy of Christ in his life and occupied his leading seat and made the people realize that he was the spiritual descendent of Christ. 3.7.4.2. Holy Prophet’s Attitude towards the Previous Scriptures and the Israelite Traditions. The Holy Prophet was fully aware of the reality that the previous scripturs available in His time were not left unaltered and on the other hand there was also the possibility that some of their original contents may had been preserved in their original shape. Therefore, it was doubtful to credit or discredit any content of their teachings. So the Holy Prophet guided the Muslims properly and advised them; (a). To avoid from crediting or discrediting them. (b) Neither to read or write nor to transmit them to others.

145

All of the Prophetic instructions are explained here with refrences to their original sources. (a). To avoid from crediting or discrediting them. " ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ "127 ًلَ تُ َص دقُوا أَْه َل الكتَاب َوًل تُ َك ذبُوُه ْم َ وقُولُوا:آَمنها ب هَّلل َوَما أُنِْزَل “Neither confirm nor deny the reports of Christians and Jews and say ‘ we believed Allah and what revealed (to us)”

(b) Neither to read or write nor to transmit them to others. Once ‘Umar b khaṭṭāb came to know that a man dictated the text of Daniel to the people. Upon which Umar called him, punished him for doing this, ordered him to eraze what he had written and told the people that the Holy Prophet prohibited him of copying or dictating the previous scriptures. He himself relates this event thus: "انطلقت أنا فانتسخت كتابا من اهل الكتاب‘ ثم جئت به فى أديم‘ فقال لى رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم: ما هذا فى يدك يا عمر؟ قال: قلت: يا رسول هللا‘ كتاب انتسخته لنزداد به علما الى علمنا‘ فغضب رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم حتى احمرت و جنتاه‘ ثم نودى بالصالة جامعة‘ فقالت االنصار: أغضب نبيكم صلىهللا عليه وسلم‘ السالح السالح‘ فجاءوا حتى أحدقوا بمنبر رسل هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم‘ فقال: يأيها الناس! انى أوتيت جوامع الكلم وخواتيمه واختصر لى أختصارا‘ لقد أتيتكم بها بيضاء نقية فال تتهو كوا وال يقربكم المتهو كون‘ قال عمر: فقمت فقلت: رضيت باهلل ربا وباالسالم دينا وبك رسوال‘ ثم نزل رسول هللا"128 Abdullah b Abbas also advised the people to avoid the previous scriptures. He instructs in this way: "يا معشر المسلمين‘ كيف تسالون أهل الكتاب و كتابكم الذى أنزل على نبيه صلى هللا عليه وسلم أحدث االخبار باهلل تقرءونه لم يشب‘ وقد حدثكم هللا أن أهل الكتاب بدلوا ما كتب هللا وغيروا بايديهم الكتاب فقالوا هومن عندهللا ليشتروا به ثمنا قليال‘ أفال ينهاكم ما جاءكم من العلم عن مسالتهم؟ وال وهللا مارأينا منهم رجال قط يسألكم عن الذى أنزل عليكم "129

Because Islam is a complete code of life and is sufficient for the guidance to the right path of the Almighty. Therefore the holy Prophet said

ِ ِ ُّ ِِ ِ ِ ِِِ 130 " تَ َرْك ُت في ُك ْم أَْمَريْ ِن ، لَ ْن تَضلوا َما ََتَ هس ْكتُ ْم ِب َما: كتَا َب ا هَّلل َو ُسنهةَ نَبي ه" “I have left with you two things; you shall never go astray as long as you follow them: the holy Book of Allah and the sunnah of his Prophet.”

146

On another place he condemned the act of Muslims of following the Jews and Christians in these words: " ِ ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ لَتَ تهبعُ هن ُسنَ َن َم ْن َكا َن قَ بْ لَ ُك ْم َبعًا ببَاٍع، َوذَراعًا بذَراٍع، َوشْْبًا بشٍْْب، َح هَّت لَْو َد َخلُوا ِِف ُج ْحِر َض ٍ ب لََد َخلْتُ ْم فيه ، قَالُوا: ََي َر ُسوَل ِ ؟"131 ا هَّلل الْيَ ُهوُد، َوالنه َصاَرى؟ قَا َل: »فََم ْن إِ ًذا In the end, scientifically speaking about the Israilite traditions it can be concluded that the traditions and ideas, which entered into the ḥadīth literature, have been well defined and differentiated from the rest of pure Islamic traditions. All of the explanations and facts mentioned earlier show clearly that after all when all these Israelite traditions have been categorized separately then there is no reason to maintain that the whole hadith literature has been taken from pre- Islamic Arab traditions, customs and religions. The Holy Prophet, the companions, and the traditionists left the real teachings of Islam and gave preference to these doubtful Biblical scriptures instead.

3.8. Historical Authentiy of Ḥadīth and the Orientalists. Many of the Orientalists hold the view that ḥadīth has not reached us through an authentic channel of transaction. Therefore it cannot be considered as an authent historical document. Goldziher expresses his views: “The hadith will not serve as a document for the history of the infancy of Islam, but rather as reflection of the tendencies which appeared in the community during the mature stages of its development.”(132) Schacht also considers the whole of Prophetic traditions unauthentic. He says: “The traditionists produced detailed statements or “traditions” which claimed to be the reports of ear –or eyes-witnesses on the words or acts of the Prophet, handed down orally by an uninterrupted chain (Isnād) of trustworthy persons. Hardly any of these traditions, as for as matters of religious law are concerned, can be considered authentic; they were put into circulation, no doubt from the loftiest of motives, by the traditionists themselves from the first half of the second century onwards.”133 H.A.R Gibb refutes all of such objections in these comments. He says: “There were many minor legal and administrative problems to settle, his decisions in which were passed down in Muslim tradition and became unchanging laws for hundreds of millions of millions of persons, for centuries to come”.134 Maurice Bucaille writes and confirms the efforts of traditionists for the scrutiny and preservation of hadith. He says:

147

“Those who undertook to assemble them in collections made the kind of enquiries which are always very taxing before recording accounts of past events. They nevertheless had a great regard for accuracy in their arduous task of collecting information. This is illustrated by the fact that for all of the Prophet’s sayings, the most venerable collections always bear the names of those responsible for the account, going right back to the person who first collected the information from members of Muḥammad’s family or his companions.” 135 3.8.1. Authority of Ḥadīth Authorized by the Holy Prophet in Aḥādīth.

Not only the Holy Qur’ān but the Holy Prophet has also confirmed his ḥadīth and sunnah as second source of Islamic Law. He said:

ِ ِ ُّ ِِ ِ ِ ِِِ 136 " تَ َرْك ُت في ُك ْم أَْمَريْ ِن، لَ ْن تَضلوا َما ََتَ هس ْكتُ ْم ِب َما: كتَا َب ا هَّلل َو ُسنهةَ نَبي ه "

“I leave for you two things, If you keep in touch with them you will never go astray: The book of The Almighty and the sunnah of His Prophet ”

He has also commanded the Muslims to follow him while performing the writes during pilgrimage as well as in all the spheres of life. He said:

"خذوا عنى مناسككم"137

“ Take your rites (of pilgrimage) from Me”

On another occasion he said:

"صلوا كما رأيتمونى اصلى"138

“ Say the prayer as you see me saying it”

Authority of Ḥadīth as second source of Islamic law has been explained well in the ḥadīth of Mu‘ādh b. Jabal. It reads thus:

Holy Prophet asked Mu‘ādh while Sending him as a governor of Yaman;

139 "مب تقضي؟ قال: مبا ِف كتاب ا هَّلل قال: فإن مل َتد؟ قال: مبا ِف سنة رسول ا هَّلل قال: فإن مل َتد؟ قال: أجته د رأيي"

“With what you will decide? (Mu‘ādh) said: with what is in the Qur’ān, (Holy Prophet) asked: If you do not find (in Qur’ān)? (Mu‘ādh) replied: with what is in the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (Prophet) said: If you do not find (In sunnah of the Prophet)? (Mu‘ādh)

148 replied: with my own opinion (in accordance with the spirit of Islam)” Upon which the Holy Prophet thanked Allah who guided the spirit of his companion according to His will.

Obedience to the Holy Prophet is obligatory and he who follows the Holy Prophet, will enter into the paradise and he who denies his obedience will deny to enter into paradise (and finally will be deprived of paradise)

The Holy Prophet said:

ِ ِ 140 ُكلُّ أُهمِِت يَْد ُخل ُوَن اِلَنهةَ إهًل َم ْن أََب«، قَالُوا: ََي َر ُسوَل ا هَّلل، َوَم ْن ََيَْب؟ قَا َل:َم ْن أَطَاعَِِن َد َخ َل اِلَنهةَ َوَم ْن عَ َصاِّن فَ َق ْد أََب

“All of my ummah will enter into Paradise except those who denied, the companions asked who will refuse? the Holy Prophet said, who follow me will enter into Paradise those who denied my obedience, will (actually) deny (their entrance into Paradise) ”

The idea that only the Holy Qur’ān is sufficient to serve as first and last source of Islamic law has also been refuted in a well-known ḥadīth of the Holy Prophet.

The Holy Prophet said:

"يوشك الرجل، متكئاً على أريكته، يحدث بحديث من حديثي، فيقول: بيننا وبينكم كتاب هللا، فما َوَجْدنا فيه من حالل 141 استحللناه، وما وجدنا فيه من حرام حرمناه، أال وإن ما حرم رسول هللا مثل ما حرم هللا"

“It might be possible that a saturated man sitting by a pillow would narrate a tradition as if it be from me and would say, ‘between you and me is the Book of Allah, so it would be lawful for us what would be lawful in it, and would be unlawful for us what would be unlawful in it. Obviously, Prophet’s announcing unlawful is just like as Allah’s announcing unlawful.”

149

References Chapter: III

1 Muir, 1/xxx-xxxi.

2 Zirklī, 2/131.

3 Al-aghānī, 61/611.

4 Essays, p. 7. (note, 36).

5 Ibid p. 7.

6 Muwattā, al-nahi an al-qol bi al-qadr.

7 Al-Shāfi‘ī, Muḥammad b. Idris, Musnad, al-NaṢīha, (Shirkatu Ghurāsli al-Nashr Wa al- Tauzī‘,1425/2004), first edition, 4 vols. , 4/68.

8 Darimī, 1/82.

9 Taqī, P.85.

150

10 ‘Ayad al-Qādī, Al-‘Ilma’ ed. by Saqr, (Cairo, 1970), P. 142.

11 Al-Hakim an-Nisabūrī, Muhammad b. ‘ Abdullah, al- Mustadrak,

4 vols. (Hyderabad) 1/94.

12 Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, 6 vols. , (Cairo, 1313), 6/443.

13 Mustadrak, 1/127, 95.

14 Tirmdhī, Fi al-ḥadīth ‘an Bani Isrā’īl .

15 Ibid. , fī ḥith ālā tablīgh as-sima‘.

16 Bukhari, Ḥijjat al-widā‘,

17 Dārmī, ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abdul Rahmān, Musnad (sunan), (Dār ul Mughnī li an- Nashr wa at-Tauzīḥ‘ , first edition, Saudi Arabia,1412/2000), 4 vols. , 1/484.

18 Al-Khatīb, Aḥmad b. ‘Alī al-Baghdādī, al-Kifāya fī‘Ilm al-Riwāyah, (Almaktaba tul ‘Ilmia, Madina), p.37.

19 Jami‘ bayān al-Ilm, p. 25.

20 Mustadrak, 1/ 95, 127.

21 A‘zamī, M. Mustafā, Studies in Early Hadith Literature, (Sohail Academy Lahore, 2001), p. 18.

22 Muir, I/xxxiii- xxxiv.

23 Guillaume, pp. 18-19.

24 Ibid, p. 19-20.

25 Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Yūsuf b. Abdullah, Jāmi‘ Bayān al-‘Ilm, 1/88.

26 Early Ḥadīth, p. 293-4.

27 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdadi, Aḥmad b. ‘Alī, Taqyīd al- ‘Ilm, ed. Y. Eche, (Damascus, 1949), p.31.

28 Jāmi‘ Bayān al-Ilm, p.89.

29 Al-Haishami, Ali b. Abibakar, Majma al-Zawaed wa Manba’ al- Fawaid, (Dar al-Fikr Beirut, 10 vols, 1994), 1/379.

151

30 Early Hadith, p. 22.

31 Taqyīd al-‘Ilm, pp. 29-32.

32 Ibn Ḥajar, Aḥmad b. ‘Alī, Fatḥul Bāri, 13 vols. , Edited by F. Abd ul Bāqi, (Cairo, 1380), 1/208.

33 Taqyīd al- ‘Ilm, p. 57.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibn Sa‘d, Muhammad, Kitāb al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kabīr, ed. E. Sachau,et. Al. (Leiden, 1904-18), 5/140.

36 Taqyīd al- ‘Ilm, p.58.

37 Ibid, p. 61, 64.

38 Ibid. , 61.

39 Muslim Studies, 2/181.

40 Ibid, 2/22.

41 Ibid. , 2/182.

42 Ibid. , 2/183.

43 Ibid. , 2/183.

44 Tirmzi, Mā jā’ā fi ar-Rukhsatī fihi.

45 Suyūṭī, Abdur Raḥmān b. Abū Bakr, Tadrīb al-Rāwi, Matba‘ al- Sa’dat, (Egypt, 1966), p.286.

46 Al-Ramahurmuzī, al-Muhaddith al-FāṢil bayn al-Rāwi wa al-Wa‘ī , Ajjāj al-Khatīb, (Beirut, 1971), p.368.

47 Taqī, p. 96.

48 Tabqat, 2/371.

49 Ahmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, Muassisat ur-Risāla’ , First Edition, 1421/2001, 11/57.

50 Ibid. , 2/513.

152

51 FāṢil, pp. 364-366.

52 Bukhārī, Ilm.

53 Ḥanbal, Musnad,4/131.

54 Al-Khatib, Ahmad b. ‘Ali al-Baghdādī, Al-Kifāya fī‘Ilm al-Riwāyah, (Hyderabad, 1357), p.102.

55 Abu Dawūd, Sunan, Fi kitab al-Ilm.

56 Muslim, Saḥīḥ, Al-Tahdhir min al-Kidhb ‘ala Rasul Allah.

57 Muslim, Īmān, 10.

58 Al-Hakim an-Nisabūrī, Muhammad b. ‘ Abdullah, al-Mudkhal fi ‘Ilm al-Ḥadīth, ed. J. Robson, (London, 1953), p.46.

59 Al-Ḥalabī, Nūr ud-Dīn Muḥammad, Manhaj al-Naqd fi ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth, (Dār al- Fikr, Damascus, Syria, 1418/1997), 1/70.

60 Al-Baghavī, Muḥammad b. Mas‘ūd, Sharḥ al-Sunnah, (Maktaba’ al-Islāmi, Damascus, Beirut), 15 vols, n. d. , 12/280.

61 Syed Najm, ‘Abdul Mun‘im, Tadvīn as-Sunnah wa Manzilatuha, ‘AṢr al-Khulafā al-Rāshidīn,(Al-Jami‘a al-Islamia, Madīna Munawara, n. d.) , p.39.

62 Ibid. , 1/3.

63 A‘zamī, M. Mustafa, Studies in Ḥadith Methodology and Literature, (Islamic Teaching Center, Indianapolis, 1977), p.48.

64 Bayān al-‘Ilm, 1/171.

65 Ibid. , 1/72.

66 Ibn Ḥajar, Ahmad b. Ali, Tahdhīb ut-Tahdhīb, 12 vols. , (Hyderabad, 1325-1327 A. H.) , 8/49,53.

67 Ibn al-Athīr, Ali b. Muḥammad, Usd al-Ghābah, 5 vols. (Cairo, 1285-7), 3/233

68 Mustadrak, 3/573.

69 Ḥuffāẓ, 1/88.

153

70 Ibid. , 1/88.

71 Hammam b Munabbih, Ṣaḥīfah, ed. by Muhammad Ḥamidullah, 1st ed. (Damascus, 1372/1953).

72 Tabaqat, 7/17, For details See A‘zamī, Early Ḥadīth, p.60.

73 FaṢil, p.155.

74 Muir, p. xxxvi.

75 Ibn Hazm, al-Ihkām fi Usūl al-Ahkām,(Cairo, 1345-47), II/2-3, 83-4.

76 Kamālī, Mohammad Hāshim, Principals of Islamic Jurisprudence revised ed. (Cambridge, U.K. , 1991), p.65.

77 Sohaib Hasan, Criticism of Ḥadīth among Muslims with Reference to Ibn Māja, (Joint Publication with Tāhā Publishers, London and Al-Quran Society, London, 1986), p.35.

78 Ibid.

79 Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ, Nahj al-Balāgha, (Dār al-Kutub al-Arabiya al- Kubra, Cairo), 1/135.

80 Ibn Asākir, Alī b. al-Ḥasan, al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, 7 vols. , First five vols. ed. by ‘Abd al- Qadīr Badrān. 6th and 7th ed. By Aḥmad ’baid, (Damascus, 1911-1931), 1/69.

81 Ibn al-Jaūzī, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. ‘Ali al-Mauḍū‘āt al-Kubra, (Maktaba Salafia Madīna, 1386/1966), 1/4.

82 Ibn Taimiya, Ahmad b Abd al-Halīm, al-Muntaqa min Minhāj al-I‘tidāl, (Cairo, 1374 A. H.) , p.88.

83 Ibid.

84 Suyūṭī, Abdur Raḥmān b. Abū Bakr, Tahdhīr al-KhawāṢ, min aḥādīth al-QuṢṢāṢ, (Beirut, 1972), p.214.

85 Qur’ān, 17:79.

86 Tahdhir, p.161.

87 Ibn Irāq, Ali b Muhammad, Tanzīh al-Shariya al-Marfūa‘, an al-Akhbar al- Shaniya al-Maudūa‘ , (Cairo, 1378), 2/45-65.

154

88 Ibid, 2/30.

89 Al-Khatib, Ahmad b. ‘Ali al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh Baghdād, 14 vols. , (Cairo, 1931) , 14/270.

90 Tanzīḥ, 2/3.

91 Ibn Kathir, Ismail b Umar, al-Baith al-Hathīth, p.79.

92 Criticism, p.41.

93 Muhammad Adīb Ṣālih, Lamāhāt fi Usūl al-hadīth, (Damascus, 1393 A.H.) , p.305.

94 Tarikh Baghdad, 13/453.

95 Albānī, Nāsir al-dīn, Silsilat al-Aḥādīth al-Daīfa wa al-Maūdūa‘, (Beirut, 1384 A.H.), 1/57.

96 Ibn Kathir, Ismail b Umer, Albidaya wa al Nihaya, 14 vols, Ist edition, (Cairo, 1932), p.82.

97 Ibid.

98 Qur’ān, 6:25.

99 Qur’ān, 2:89.

100 Guillaume, p. 96.

101 Margoliouth, D.S., ‘On the Origin and Import of the Names, Muslim and Hanif’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 35, July 1903, p. 492.

102 Lyall, Charles J. , ‘ The Words, “Hanif” and “Muslim” ‘, Journal of the Royal, Asiatic Society, vol. 35, 1903, pp. 771-2.

103 Ibid.

104 Ibid. , p.777.

105 Ibid. , p.784.

106 Frank Hugh Foster, is Islam a Christian heresy’ The Muslim World, vol. 23 no.1, January 1933, pp.126-33.

155

107 Margoliouth, Is Islam a Chritian Heresy?, The Muslim World, vol.23 no.1, January 1933, pp.126-33.

108 Foster, ‘Reply to Professor Margoliouth’s Article, January 1933’ The Muslim World,vol.23, no. 2, April 1933, p.198.

109 Muir, William, Mahomet and Islam, Darf Publishers Limited Loondon, 1986, p.46

110 Guillaume, p. 81.

111 Henry Stubbe, An Account of the Rise and Progress of Mahometanism, edited by Mahmood Khan Shairani, (Orientalia Publishers, Lahore, 1975), pp. 150 – 151.

112 The Messenger p. 86.

113 Bell, Richard, The Origin of Islam in its Charistian Environment, (Frank Cass & Co. Ltd. , 1968), pp.190-191.

114 Ibid. , p.193.

115 Muslim Studies, 2/346.

116 Will Durant, The Age of Faith,J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. New Yark, 1997 p.211-12.

117 Mahomet and Islam, p. 15.

118 The Messenger, p. 33.

119 Carlyle, Thomas On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History, (J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. New Yark, 1948), p. 287.

120 Qur’ān, 3:64.

121 Qur’ān, 3:3.

122 Qur’ān, 3:50.

123 Qur’ān, 4:47.

124 Qur’ān, 5:48.

125 Bucaille, p.50.

126 Ibid. , p.14.

156

127 Bukhārī, Ma Yajūzu min Tafsīr al-Taurat wa Ghairiha.

128 Haishamī, ‘Alī b. Abī Bakar, al-MaqṢad al-‘Ulā fī Zawāid Abī Y‘alāl-MūṢlī, 4 vols. , (Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmia, Beirut, Labanān), 1/60.

129 Bukhari, Sāi’l ahli shirk ‘ani-shahādat.

130 Muwattā, al-nahi an al-qowl bi al-qadr.

131 Ibn Maja, Iftiraq al-Umam.

132 Muslim Studies 2/19. 133 Islamic Law, p.34. 134 Pasha, John Bagot Glubb, The Life and Times of Muhammad p.359 135 Bucaille, p.259. 136 Muwattā, al-nahi an al-qowl bi al-qadr. 137 Bayān al-‘Ilm, 2/1189. 138 Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, 4/54. 139 Musnad, al-Shāfī‘, 1/218. 140 Bukhārī, Iqtidā’ bi Sunan Rasūl Allah. 141 Ibn Maja,T‘aẓīm ḥadīth Rasūl Allah.

157

CHAPTER IV

THE SCIENCE OF THE CRITICISM OF ḤADĪTH CONTENT CRITICISM OF ḤADĪTH AND THE ORIENTALISTS.

Chapter IV

158

THE SCIENCE OF THE CRITICISM OF ḤADĪTH

CONTENT CRITICISM OF ḤADĪTH AND THE ORIENTALISTS.

4.1. Orientalists’ Views on the Content Criticism of Ḥadīth

The orientalists, who do not accept the text of ḥadīth as authentic and original maintain that the Muslim scholars of ḥadīth, throughout the literary history of the ḥadīth literature, did not give attention to the content criticism of ḥadīth. On the other hand, according to the orientalists, they focused only on the criticism of ḥadīth narration.

Some of the orientalists’ statements regarding this supposition are being mentioned here so that we may understand the nature of their objections to answer them all.

Guillaume Alfred writes on this topic in these lines. He says:

“The earliest collections are at one with the later in this, that attention was focused not on the matn or subject-matter of the tradition but on the īsnād or chain of guarantors going back to a Companion of the Prophet.”1

He moves further and raises the same objection on Bukhārī that he seems not interested in the investigation of text and contents of ḥadīth literature. He speaks in this mode:

“There does not appear to have been any attempt to investigate the claimes of any tradition to represent the actual words of Muhammad. Even Bukhārī was content to confine himself to a criticism of the genealogy of the īsnād rather than the subject-matter of the criticism and the tradition and the circumstances in which the guarantors lived, so that any tradition which could clothe itself in a canonical dress became ipso facto respectable.”2

Further, he points out that personal opinions of the traditionists entered into ḥadīth literature because subject matter of the available material for ḥadīth literature was not investigated. So, according to the orientalists’ opinions, lack of content criticism opened the door of ḥadīth literature for personal ideas of learned ḥadīth scholars. Alfred says in this way:

159

“Despite the invention of ḥadīth to support a principle required at the time, the existence of contradictory ḥadīth, and the lack of any critical examination of the statements of the traditionists, the controversy ended in the complete victory of the traditional party, so that their doctrines have become an integral part of the faith of a Muhammadan.”3

In short, the orientalists maintain that Muslims’ focus for criticism was on the sanad of ḥadīth and ignored the criticism of the text of ḥadīth. They also hold the view that the orientalists, contrary to the Muslims, gave much of their attention to the criticism of the text of ḥadīth. Albrecht Noth says about this claim in this way:

“Every orientalist knows that there are fundamental differences between the autonomous Muslim study of ḥadīth, Prophetic tradition, on the one hand, and the orientalists’ study of the subject on the other. These differences can be reduced to the following simple formula: the main interest of Muslim scholars is directed at the īsnād, while the real subject of orientalist scholarship is the matn, the īsnād being considered only insofar as it can assist in dating and interpreting (in the widest possible sense) the Matn.”4

These were the assumptions of the orientalists about the Muslim ways of criticism of ḥadīth. But are these assumptions based on the reality or not? We have to see into the matter in this scholarship. The early traditionists paid much attention to prevent ahadiīth fromthe possibility of errors in the procedure of memorization and compilation of ḥadīth. They continuously revised what they had written down and advised their students to do the same carefully. But, inspite of all of these precautions, errors inevitably found the way into the ḥadīth literature. Scribes made mistakes, memories weakened some times and failed to preserve the actual wording and sense of the aḥādīth texts and there appeared deliberate forgeries. Now, keeping in view the objections of orientalists mentioned above, we now turn our attention to prove how the Muslims defended the body of ḥadīth literature. The Muslims, throughout their literary history, used different tactics for the defence of ḥadīth literature.

Here are these techniques of Muslim scholars, with explanatory examples from their practical lives by using which they defended this sacred genre of Islamic history. Here are these methods..

160

4.2. History of Ḥadīth Criticism; Muslim Steps for the Defence of Ḥadīth Literature:

Under this topic we shall try to describe all the standards, checks and techniques, application of which throughout the history of ḥadīth literature, made it possible to judge and ensure the authenticity and validity of prophetic aḥādīth. Most of these techniques and standards were discovered and applied very first time ever in the world history of any literature. It is why that ḥadīth literature became a role model for other genre of historical literature like Tafsīr, Fiqh, and social and political history. Specially literature of world history had and still have to depend upon these standards. This science of ḥadīth covering all these rules is classified in two parts. One of them consists of the applied standards in the content criticism while the other part deals in the narration or the transmission of ḥadīth. Part first of these is being discussed in this fourth chapter and the next will be the content of the fifth chapter of this work. All of themare being mentioned here to prove that in the existence of such sound standards of ḥadīth criticism, it was never possible for the forgers to fabricate a ḥadīth and then get it entered into the pure and authentic ḥadīth literature. This impossibility was because each and everyḥadīth, coming truly from the Holy Prophet or forged, had to go through the filter of these highly standards. Only those aḥādīth were called sound which were approved and authenticated by these rules.

Before going into the details of ḥadīth criticism, it seems necessary to describe the basic structure of a ḥadīth. It is so because the criticism is classified in the light of this structure. A ḥadith reported on the authority of the Holy Prophet is distributed into two main parts, details of which are being described here in the following way. Because the main focus of the Holy Prophet and his companions was on content criticism. And the rest of the types of ḥadīth criticism came into being when the circumstances changed and a bulk of lies started to be attributed to the Holy Prophet. Following are the two parts of ḥadith.

i. Matn (text) ii. Isnād(chainof Transmitters) Both of them are being defined with their full details. 4.2.1. Content Criticism of Ḥadīth

161

4.2.1.1. Literal Meanings of Matn.

Matn literally stands for a hard tough part of soil.

4.2.1.2. Terminological Meanings.

The specific part of a ḥadīth that falls next to sanad is called matn. It consists of the sayings, doings, habits or Holy Prophet’s silent approval of the actions of His companions.

4.2.2. Criticism of Isnaād in Ḥadīth Literature. 4.2.2.1. Sanad (Chain of Transmitters) 4.2.2.1.1. Literal Meanings of Sanad. a- Sanad means trust or a source of confidence. b- Isnād (verb) it became more common than the word sanad, it means to take something high up to the peak or the original authority. In other words it is ‘the way to matn’. 4.2.2.1.2. Terminological Meanings. 1- In Islamic terminology of ḥadīth literature, both of these words stand for a chain of narrators or authorities for the sayings said in the previous times. This genre of literature is confined to the tradition literature. It is for the purpose of documentation of the ḥadīth literature in which each statement is taken right back to first hand evidence. It tells us the original and first source of each statement. So, it was possible only because of this chain of transmitters that ḥadīth was defended from the large scale fabrication. Because, once the name of the reporter has come to light it was quite possible to investigate whether he was trustworthy or not and whether he heard the person from whom he reported the tradition. It also helped the traditionists in the classification of tradition-literature. In this way the text (Matn) of hadith guides the Muslims to follow Islam and their Prophet, and the Isnād guarantees its authority as a solid proof of its preservence and carefull transition. Later on, Criticism of this nature came to be known as ‘Ilm al-jarḥ wa at- ta‘dīl (disparaging and authenticating).Here both the parts can be illustrated well in the instance of a Prophetic ḥadīth with its complete isnād.

162

أخبرنا الشافعى ‘ قال أخبرنا مالك‘ عن نافع عن ابن عمر ‘ أن رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم ‘ سئل عن الضب فقال: " لست باكله وال محرمه"5

“Shāfi‘ī‘-Mālik-Nāfi‘-Ibn ‘Umar: the Prophet was asked about the lizard (al-dabb); he replied, ‘‘Neither do I eat it nor do I forbid it.”

In this Ḥadīth of the Holy Prophet the chain of narrators is: Shāfii‘-Mālik-Nāfi‘-Ibn ‘Umar: While the text of ḥadīth is:

“The Prophet was asked about the lizard (al-dabb); he replied, ‘Neither do I eat it nor do I forbid it.’ ”

As matn is the main part of a ḥadīth and the whole system of ḥadīth criticism has been organized with the Divine help, for its preservtion and defence, therefore, it has been put and discussed first before sanad in the scheme of this work. Because method of Isnād system for the defense of ḥadīth is not relevant to running chapter , in order to avoid the repetition here, please see them in chapter number five.

4.2.1.1. Content Criticism of Ḥadīth and the Command of the Holy Quran. The Almighty Allah himself expressed the rule for the confirmation of the source and the subject matter of a report in the Holy Quran. It reads: هِ ِ ِ ِ ٍ ِ ِ ٍ ِ ِِ 6 "ََي أَي َُّها الذي َن آََمنُوا إ ْن َجاءَُك ْم فَاس ٌق بنَ بَأ فَ تَ بَ يه نُوا أَ ْن تُصيبُوا قَ ْوًما ِبََهالَة فَ تُ ْصب ُح وا عَلَى َما فَ عَلْتُ ْم ََندمني" “O You who believe, if a dissolute person brings some news, verify it first lest you attack a people out of ignorance and later regret what you have done.” Here the stress for the investigation of first hand evidence is just to discover the actual reality in the subject matter of the report received. Because the mistake in investigating, understand and acting upon the inner massege of the reporting cause a harm and a source of repentence. So the divine order to investigate the report to prevent the believers from being victim of the wrong and harmful message.

According to Ibn Qayyim, a ḥadīth can be examined through the criticism of the text of ḥadīth without going into its Īsnād.

163

In Suyūṭī’s view, the text of ḥadīth must be examined and criticized even if the īsnād of the ḥadīth be authentic and accurate.

4.2.1.2. Content Criticism of Ḥadīth in the Age of the Holy Prophet.

The Holy Prophet led last ten years of His life as a multidimensional personality. His status during this period was as a ruler, a teacher, an administrator, a Judge and a leader of the society. His sayings and actions gained much of the attention of the people. He gave not only different judgments on legal issues but he also expressed critical remarks about the personalities of people and the reports they uttered or transmitted from him. The Holy Prophet used the word ‘Ṣadaqa’(he told the truth) for the confirmation of a report and ‘kadhaba’(he told a lie) to discredit the report. Both types of these remarks from the Holy Prophet are being mentioned so that it may be proved that content criticism of the sayings and actions of the Holy Prophet has its bases even in the life time of the Holy Prophet.

4.2.1.2.1. Authenticating Utterances of the Holy Prophet.

i.Bukharī with an Īsnād back to ‘Ᾱisha (R.A) who said: “Aflah asked for my permission to visit me face to face but I declined to give such permission. So he said: Do you observe Hijab (i.e. veiling in person of men not related to the woman) while I am an uncle to you? I said: How is that? He replied: my brother’s wife has suckled you with the milk of my brother. ‘Ᾱisha said: I asked the Prophet about this and he remarked: Aflah has spoken the truth. Give him permission.”7

ii. Jabir b Abdullah quotes a ḥadīth from the lengthy speech of Propher’s fare well pilgrimage.

“Ali came from Yemen with sacrificial animals for the Prophet and found Fātima among one of those who had discarded Ihram and had put on dyed clothes and had applied antimony. ‘Ali showed his disapproval where upon she said: My father has commanded me to do this. The narrator of this report added further that ‘Ali used to say in’ Iraq: I went to the messenger of Allah showing annoyance of Fātima for what she had done and asked (the verdict) of Allah’s

164

messenger regarding what she had narrated from him and told him that he was angry with her.

The Prophet remarked: She has told the truth. She has told the truth.”8

4.2.1.2.2. Disparaging Remarks by the Holy Prophet. It is found in ḥadīth literature that the Holy Prophet also condemned the acts of some people because they lied. “Muslim transmitted on the authority of Salama b al-Akwa’ that during the battle of Khaiber, Ᾱmir, a brother of Salama, drove a Jew before him to strike him with his sword but it recoiled and struck his own knee which caused his death. Due to this incident some people became reluctant to invoke the mercy of Allah upon him. Salama was a bit agitated about their behavior when the Prophet saw him and said to him: ‘What is the matter with you?, I said to him: My father and my mother be thy ransom, people presume that Ᾱmir’s sacrifice has been in vain. He asked: Who has said ? I said: So and so and ‘Usaid b Hudair al-Ansārī. He remarked : whoever said that had lied. For him (i.e. Ᾱmir) there is a double reward. (He indicated this by putting two of his fingers together). He was a devotee of God and a warrior fighting for His cause. There will hardly be any Arab who can fight as bravely as he did.”9 In this instance the Holy Prophet gave remarks against the comments of the people, the subject matter of which was not according to the spirit of the teachings of the Holy Prophet. It was directly the type of content criticism by the Holy Prophet.

4.2.1.2.3. Both Types of Comments: Sometimes the Holy Prophet uttered the comments about the repeated texts which cover both confirming the authenticity and negating the subject matter of the reports. “Once Jabir reported that a slave of Hatib came to Allah’s messenger complaining against Hatib and said: Hatib will definitely go to hell. On hearing this the Prophet remarked: You

165

tell a lie. He will not go there for he has taken part in Badr and in (the expedition) of Hudaibiya.”10 In this saying of the Holy Prophet, He has disapproved the statement of the slave of Hatib who was telling a lie about the character of Ḥadīth and his fate in the world here after and approved the acts of Hatib because he was a pious and faithful companion of the Holy Prophet. It is the first and the best form of the textual criticism even in the life of the Holy Prophet.

4.2.1.2.4. Referring to the Original Source for Confirmation.

We can easily check and observe the validity or invalidity of the text of a report if its basic and original source is known to us. The Holy Prophet and His companions as well used to refer, and confirm the wording and subject matter of the reports whenever they felt its need.

“Abdullah b. ‘Umar reported that a Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah’s messenger S.A.W.. having committed adultery. Allah’s messenger came to the Jews and said: “what do you find in Torah for one who commits adultery? They said: We darken their faces and make them ride on donkey with their faces turned to the opposite direction (and their backs touching each other’s) and then they are taken round (the city). He said: bring the Torah if you are truthful. They brought it and recited it until when they came to the verse pertaining to stoning and read(only that which was) between his hands and what subsequent to that. ‘Abdullah b Salām who was at that time with the Messenger of Allah said: command him (the reciter) to lift his hand. He lifted it and there was, underneath it, the verse pertaining to stoning. Allah’s Messenger pronounced judgment on both of them and they were stoned.”11

In another instance the early Muslim community seem to follow the habit of their Prophet in refining to and confirming the statement from its first source. Ibn Adi transmitted on the authority of Buraida, (b. Hussaib al-Aslami) that in the pre-Islamic era a man wanted to marry in a tribe of Bani Laith that lived on the periphery of Madina but the tribe did not concede to his will. Later he visted them dressed in a fine garment. He told them that

166

he had been appointed and deputed by the Prophet to judge among them in all issues, then he came to the woman he wanted to marry. The people sent a man to the Prophet to enquire whether he deputed him or not. The Prophet remarked, “The enemy of God has lied.” The Prophet sent his special messenger with the instructions that if he found him alive, which he thought he would not, kill him and if he found him dead burn his corpse. When he reached there he found him, already dead. He had died from snakebite. He burnt his dead body.12

In this incident habit of the people of early Muslim society to confirm the claims or statement of others and not to be contented on the reports only.

4.2.1.2.5. Demanding Confirmation of the Report:

It was the common habit of the Holy Prophet to demand confirmation from the audience whenever some incident was transmitted to him. These two examples from the Holy Prophet will suffice to illustrate this rule from the life of the Holy Prophet.

• Abū Hurairah (R.A) reported: “The Messenger (P.B.U.H) of Allah led us in the ‘Asr prayer and gave salutation after two rakahs. Dhu al- Yadain (the possessor of long arms)stood up and said: Massenger of Allah, has the prayer been shortened or have you forgotton? The Holy Prophet replied, ‘Nothing like this has happened’. (Neither the prayer has been shortened nor have I forgotten). He (Dhu al- Yadain) said: Messenger of Allah, something has definitely happened. The Messenger of Allah turned towards the people and said: Is Dhu al- Yadain true (in his assertion)? They said: Messenger of Allah; He is true. Then the Messenger of Allah completed the rest of the prayer and then performed two prostrations while he was sitting after salutation.”13

In this tradition the Holy Prophet asked his companions whether he had actually said two rak’ahs instead of four and was Dhu al- Yadain reported truly or not? Upon which the companions confirmed Dhu al- Yadain’s report and the Holy Prophet completed the rest of his prayer.

Here is the other example.

167

• Būkharī with his īsnād back to Abdullah b. ‘Amr who said: The Prophet asked me: Wasn’t I told that you keep on praying during the night and fasting during the day? I said: Yes I do. The Prophet said: If you keep on doing that your eyes will be swollen and you yourself will be tired. Indeed you have an obligation towards your own self and your family. So do first but break it as well and do prayer but sleep as well.”14

In this event, we see the Holy Prophet has asked his companion Abdullah b. ‘Amr (d. 68 A.H.) whether he had said to the Holy Prophet so and so or not? Upon which Abdullah b. ‘Amr confirmed and the Holy Prophet advised him to perform the Islamic ritual properly.

4.2.1.2.6. Demanding Confirmation of the Text by way of Oath.

Whenever the subject matter of the report happened to be so important or alarming, the Holy Prophet demanded the confirmation of the subject matter of the report by the way of an oath.

“Abdullah b Mas’ud who said: On the day of Badr I found Abū Jahl lying down. So I hit him with my sword but he did not react. After hitting him, I came to Prophet while the day was very hot. I said to him: Abū Jahl, the enemy of God, is killed. The Prophet said: by Allah, has he been killed? I said: By Allah, he was been killed. Then he came with us and we showed him where he was lying. The Prophet looked at him and said: He was the pharaoh of this Ummah.”15

Because the death of Abū Jahl, the master of Non-Muslims, was a matter of great importance for both Makkans and the Muslims. Therefore the Holy Prophet swore by God and confirmed the news of the death of Abū Jahl. Abdullah b. Mas’ud (b.32 A.H.) swore by Allah and responded positively.

4.2.1.2.7. Believing a Report Supported by an Oath.

The event known as hadith Ifk (the false report) is involving, ‘Ᾱisha (d.58 A.H.) the wife of the Prophet, is recorded at length by both Bukharī and Muslim.

168

According to both of them, the Prophet took counsel of Usāma b. Zaid (d. 54 A.H./673 A.D.) and ‘Ali b. tālib concerning ‘Ᾱisha. Usāma had a high opinion about her while, ‘Ali advised him to ask her maid servant Barira about her conduct generally. Here we quote the relevant part from Muslim.

“So Allah’s messenger called Barira and said: Barira, did you see anything in ‘Ᾱisha which can cause doubt about her? Barira said: Who sent thee with the truth, I have seen nothing objectionable in her but only this much that she is a young girl and she goes to sleep while kneading the flour and the sheep eat it? Thereupon Allah’s Messenger mounted the pulpit and sought vindication against ‘Abdullah b. Ubayy b Salul and he further said: Who would exonerate me from the imputations of that person who has troubled (me) regarding my family? By Allah I find nothing in my wife but goodness…” 16

In this incident, we find Barira, (the free slave of ‘A’isha) absolving ‘Ᾱisha from misconduct by swearing by the name of Allah. The Prophet became sure of her innocence after hearing praiseworthy remarks about ‘Ᾱisha from three persons. Barira’s testimony, supported by the way of oath., was more dependable because of her close association with ‘Ᾱisha. Consequently he stood up and made the above mentioned statement about ‘Abdullah b Ubayy, the leader of hypocrites in Madina.

4.2.1.3. Content Criticism of Ḥadīth in the Period of the Companions.

Companions of the Holy Prophet lived long after him. Not all of them on every event happened to attend the company of the Holy Prophet. In most of the cases, only a limited number of the companions used to attend His company. So after the departure of the Holy Prophet from this world, companions used to convey the sayings and actions of the Holy Prophet to one another. During this reporting, they used to utilize their utmost care to maintain the actual wording and spirit or sense of the reports. But because having mistaken is the human instinct, therefore sometimes they happened to commit mistakes during this process of the diffusion of the Prophetic aḥādīth. On the other hand, the companions who had preserved the actual sense of the events of the Holy Prophet, did not let these discrepancies and errors go

169 unchallenged. Whenever some of them happened to mistake and changed the text, context or subject matter meant different from the actual saying or action of the Holy Prophet, those who knew its actual content rejected this report by using the word ‘kadhaba, or ‘wahima,. This clearly shows the care and precaution of the companions they utilized for the defense of the ḥadīth literature from having been altered textually or contextually. Some of the companions took special interest in this field. They can be considered the pioneers in the field of ḥadīth criticism after the Holy Prophet. They are the following.

Abū Bakr, the first caliph, ‘Umar b Khattāb, the second righteous caliph, ‘Ali b. Abū Tālib, the fourth righteous caliph, ‘Ᾱisha (d.58), ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbās ( d.68 A.H.), ‘Abdullah b Salām (d.43 A.H.), ‘Ubaidah b Samit ( d.34 A.H.). Examples from the lives of some of these are being written here to prove that the companions took the responsibility of the preservation and diffusion of aḥādīth of the Holy Prophet on their shoulders and fulfilled this duty quite perfectly. The companions of the Holy Prophet used several techniques to defend ḥadīth literature from errors and mistakes. But we shall quote only those relevant to the content criticism. It is just because in this part of the thesis we are concerned to prove the criticism of the contents and subject matter of Prophetic aḥādīth event in the earliest period of Islamic history. Because the Prophet’s companions are the earliest community of Islam so the proofs of content criticism from the companion’s lives will be of vital importance to refute the baseless assumptions of the orientalists about ḥadīth criticism by The Muslims. So these are the events that will prove textual as well as contextual criticism of ḥadīth literature by the companions.

4.2.1.3.1. Ᾱisha (R.A) and Content Criticism of Ḥadīth.

Abdullah b Abu Mulaikah reported: I was sitting by the side of Ibn ‘Umar and we were waiting for the bier of Umm Aban, daughter of ‘Uthmān, and there was also ‘Amr b ‘Uthmān. Meanwhile there came Ibn ‘Abbas led by a guide. I conceived that he was informed of the place of Ibn ‘Umar. So he came and sat by my side. While I was between them (Ibn. Abbas and Ibn ‘Umar), there came the noise (of wailing) from the house. Upon this Ibn ‘Umar said: (That is, he pointed out to; ‘Amr that he should stand and forbid them, for): I heard the Messenger of Allah as saying:

170

"إن الميت ليعذب ببكاء أهله"17

‘The dead is punished because of the lamentation of his family.’

‘Abdullah made it general (what was said for a particular occasion).

Ibn ‘Abbas said: When we were with the Commander of the believers, ’Umar b Khattāb, we reached Baida, and there was a man under the shadow of the tree. He said to me: Go and inform me who is that person. So I went and (found) that he was suhaib. I returned to him and said: You commanded me to find out for you who that was, and he is Suhaib. He (‘Umar) said: Command him to see us. I said: He has his family along with him. He said: (This is of no account) even if he has his family along with him. So he (the narrator) told him to see (the commander of the believers and his party). When we came to (Madina) it was not before that the commander of the believers was wounded and Suhaib came weeping and crying: Alas for the brother, alas for the companion. Upon this ‘Umar said: Didn’t you know, or didn’t you hear that the messenger of Allah said: ‘The dead is punished because of the lamentation of his family.’

Then ‘Abdullah made it general and (‘Umar told it of certain occasions. So I ‘Abdullah b Mulaika ) stood up and went to ‘Ᾱisha and told her what Ibn ‘Umar had said. Upon this she said: I swear that Allah’s Messenger never said that ‘dead would be punished because of his family’s lamenting for him.’ What he said was that ‘Allah would increase the punishment of the unbeliever because of his family’ lamenting for him. Verily it is Allah who has caused laughter and weeping. No bearer of a burden will bear another’s burden.’

Ibn Abi Mulaika said that al-Qāsim b Muhammad said that when the words of ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Umar were conveyed to ‘Ᾱisha, she said: You have narrated it to me from those who are neither liars nor those suspected of lying but (sometimes) hearing misleads.”18

In this episode, ‘Ᾱisha expressed her remarks about Umar b Khattāb and his son ‘Abdullah but in spite of his positive remarks about them, she did not leave their report unchecked because it contradicted the text of ḥadīth, the general spirit of Islam and the verse of the Holy Quran:

171

"وال تزر وازرة وزر أخرى"19

4.2.1.3.2. ‘Abdullah b ‘Abbās and the Confirmation of Ḥadīth- Text with its Repetition.

“Taus reported that Bushair b Ka’b came to Ibn ‘Abbās and started telling him Aḥādīth. Ibn ‘Abbas asked him to repeat Hadith so and so. He repeated it and then kept on saying Aḥādīth till Ibn ‘Abbas again asked him to repeat Ḥadīth so and so. This he did and then said: I did not know whether you recognized all what I reported except the one which you rejected or you rejected all what I have said except the one you approved. Ibn ‘Abbas replied: We used to report from the Prophet when the lies were not accredited to him but when the people mixed up, we abandoned reporting from them.”20

This story reveals the fact that Ibn ‘Abbās was a bit less satisfied with the text of the report of Bushair from Abu Dhar and Abu Darada. So he did not hesitate for a while from asking Bushair to repeat his report so that he (Ibn ‘Abbās) may check and verify the accuracy of the text and subject matter of the report.‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbās has also commented on the reason why he demanded the repetition of the report. According to him, the reason was people’s fathering lies and mis-statements to the Holy Prophet. So Ibn ‘Abbās and other companions tried their best to prevent the subject matter of ḥadīth literature from being changed.

4.2.1.3.3. Abolishing of ‘Umar’s Command Due to a Prophetic Ḥadīth.

It was a common rule among all of the companions and their followers that they used to left acting upon a rule whenever they came to know some ḥadīth from the Holy Prophet or a verse from the Holy Qur’ān contrary to their emerging practice.

One of such instances is of ‘Umar b. Khattāb that follows in the Risālah of Imam al-Shafi‘ī. “‘Umar b Khattāb declared that fifteen camels should be given as a bloodwit against a thumb till the letter of the Prophet to the family of ‘Amr b. Hazm was found. It reads: ‘(Bloodwit of) each finger is equal to ten camels.’ So they started

172

doing according to it. Shāfi‘ī said: They didn’t accept this letter till it was proved to be the letter of the Prophet.”21

This cancellation of ‘Umar’s orders was just because of the text of Holy Prophet’s letter to the family of ‘Amr b Hazm due to which the bloodwet of a finger was fixed equal to ten camels. This also shows how the companions were obedient and cautions to accept the sayings of the Holy Prophet against their own understanding.

4.2.1.3.4. Ka‘b b. Mālik and Examining the Aḥādīth by Listening to their Contents Only.

When we see and observe the early history of Islam, we see that the content criticism was the first type of criticism that was most frequently used by the Holy Prophet as well as the companions of the Holy Prophet. Therefore, while talking and listening to one another’s reports, they generally examined the subject matter and contents of the reports. They often did not see who was the companion who reported the saying of the Holy Prophet.

It has been well illustrated in the practice of Ka’b b Mālik, who after having gone blind, used to say whenever any person spoke lies before him: ‘Keep quiet. Ismell lies from your mouth.’ Similarly whenever he heard any fabricated Ḥadīth, he knew the lie associated with it. (He developed this merit) because he himself faced the trail of telling the truth when the Prophet came back after the battle of Tabūk. Allah revealed on that occasion:

يَا أَيُّ َها ا هل ِذي َن آ َمنُوا اتهقُوا هَّللاَ َوقُولُوا َق ْو ًال َس ِدي ًدا 22

‘O believers, have fear of Allah and be with those who speak the truth.”

It is quite believable that a person, after a long association with the Prophet would have known the general way of the Prophet’s speech. He would have developed such understanding as to differentiate

173

between the sayings of the Prophet to that of an impostor, who, like a money-changer who can easily detect a true coin from a false one, Ka‘b b Mālik (d.50 A.H./670 A.D.)was very familiar with the sayings of the Prophet and was able to isolate the trueḤadīth from the fabricated one. Even an ordinary person experiences this sort of thing in his daily life regarding his closest friends. One often is witnessed to be proclaiming, if anything unfamiliar is reported about a friend:’ No, he is not the sort of person to do that or say so.” So it is quite possible for a regular reader and observer of the Prophetic aḥādīth and the verses of the Holy Qur’ān to judge the spirit of ḥadīth and Qur’ān by listening them only.

4.2.1.4. The Period after the Companions.

There is no period in the history of Islamic literature when content criticism of ḥadīth texts is ignored. After the Holy Prophet,His companions performed this duty very well and it continued afterwards. The successors, and the traditionists of later times continued this practice of examining and evaluating the text of aḥādīth up to their level best. A general survey of all the times after the companions shows that specialist scholars of ḥadīth literature utilized the following techniques and methods for this purpose.

4.2.1.4.1. Textual Comparisons of Ḥadith Texts. It was a most common practice among earlier and later Muslims, including the Holy Prophet Himself, to compare a ḥadīth narrated by traditionist with other texts. These tactics for the content criticism will help us prove the assumptions of the orientalists invalid. We shall begin to point out these methods from the very age of the Holy Prophet up to the age of six canonical books on ḥadīth. First of all, we begin with the age of the Holy Prophet.

As ḥadīth scholars were ḥuffāz of hadith texts, so they used to focus on the text of aḥādīth just after receiving them. If any of these aḥādīth contradicted any other hadith that was considered sound and admitted as reliable or it contradicted the Qur’ānic verses, they discarded it by saying it Maudu. As Ibn Qayyim, says that a ḥadīth can be examined through the criticism of the text of ḥadīth without going into its Īsnād.23

174

And Suyūtī says that the text of ḥadīth must be examined and criticized even if the īsnād of the ḥadīth be authentic and accurate.24

Afamoussuccessor, Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī, (68-131) defines the importance of this method: ‘If you wish to know the mistakes of your teachers then you ought to sit down with others as well”

Ibn al-Mubarak (118-181) also points out: “To reach an authentic statement one needs to compare the words of scholars with each other.’

These scholars have deduced these rules from the sayings of the Holy Prophet and the practice of the companions. In coming lines, all the textual comparisons utilized by ḥadīth scholars are being mentioned.

4.2.1.4.2. Comparing Ḥadīth Texts with the Text of Qur’ān.

In the whole ḥadīth literature, no ḥadīth is left unchallenged that contradicts the text or spirit of the Holy Qur’ān. As the Holy Prophet said:

“After I am gone, differences will arise among you. Compare whatever is reported to be mine with the book of God that which agrees therewith you may accept as having come from me; that which disagrees you will reject as a fabrication,” 27

This valid standard is observed by the great men of Islam right from the very beginning. Ibn Khaldun wrote: “I do not believe any Hadith or report of a companion of the Prophet to be true which differs from the common sense meaning of the Qur’an, no matter how trustworthy the narraters may have been.” 28

Abū Bakr Ibn al-tayyib is reported to give his comments that it is a proof of the forged character of a tradition that it be against reason or common experiences; or that it conflict with the explicit text of the Qur’ān and the Mutawatir tradition.29

The traditionists after the companions derived this rule of criticizing and comparing the text of ḥadīth with the related verses of the Holy Qur’ān from the practical literary services of the companions of the Holy Prophet. Examples of the rejection of aḥādīth because of their

175

contradiction with the text of the Holy Qur’ān by the companions have been mentioned earlier.

4.2.1.4.3. Comparing Aḥādīth Text of Different Students of the Same Scholar.

The successor, Ayyūb al-Sakhtiānī (68-131A.H.) points out this rule in these lines; “If you wish to know the mistakes of your teacher, then you ought to sit down with others as well.”30

Ibn al-Mubārak (118-181 A.H) continues about this rule in these words: “To reach an authentic conclusion one needs to compare the words of scholars with each other”31

Ibn Main (d233 A.H.) visited 18 of the students of the great scholar, Ḥammād b Salama to read their versions of his book. When he was asked about his aim of doing so, He replied:

“Ḥammād b. Salama committed mistakes, and his students added some more mistakes. So I want to distinguish between the mistakes of Ḥamāad and those of his students. If find all the students of Ḥammād committing a certain mistake unanimously, then the source of the mistake is Ḥammād. If I find the majority of the students of Hammad say something, and some of them go against them, then this mistake was committed by those particular students. In this way, I make a distinction between the mistakes of Ḥammād and those of his students.”32

This technique not only allowed Ibn Maīn to know about Ḥammād and his students’ mistakes but also helped him to grade Ḥammād’s students according to accuracy in their notes.

This rule is not invented by Ibn M‘aīn but we find this in use even in the caliphate of Abū Baker.

Muslim b. al-Ḥijjāj took an example into practice.

Ibn ‘Abbās once spent a night in the room of his aunt Maimuna. After a time, according to his statement, the Prophet stood up, performed the ablution, and began to pray. Ibn ‘Abbās did the same, and after performing the ablution went and stood at the left of the Prophet, upon which the Prophet moved him from his left and made

176

him stand at his right. This incident was also narrated by one of the scholars, Yazid b. Abū Zinād, on the authority of Kuraib, from Ibn ‘Abbās; but in his version Ibn ‘Abbās stood at the right of the Prophet and later on he was made to stand at his left.

To determine which was the correct version, Muslim applied the following method: He gathered all the statements of the colleagues of Yazid, the students of Kuraib, who unanimously agreed that Ibn ‘Abbās first stood at the Prophet’s left. Then he gathered all the statements of the colleagues of Kuraib, the students of Ibn ‘Abbās, who unanimously agreed that Ibn ‘Abbās first stood at the Prophet’s left. He next collected reports of the occasions when a companion had prayed with the Prophet alone. In all these cases it was confirmed that the other man stood at the right of the Prophet. The weight of the evidence served to prove that what was related by Yazid b. Abu Zinād was a mistake.”33

4.2.1.4.4. Comparing the Texts of the Statements made at Different Times by the Same Scholar.

It was a common practice among the ḥadīth scholars of all the times from the age of the companions up to now that they used to test the memory accuracy of a scholar by asking him to report a tradition that he had narrated to them some or a long time ago.

They have derived this rule from the practices of the companions who used to take this technique into use in their practical lives. For examples, ‘Ᾱisha once told her nephew ‘Urwah to go to ‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr and ask him about the aḥādīth of the Prophet, as he had learned, and she became disturbed about this particular ḥadīth. After a year or so, she sent ‘Urwah back to ‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr to ask him about the same ḥadīth. ‘Urwah reported that ‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr repeated the ḥadīth once again exactly as he had reported before. Upon which she said, “I cannot but think him correct, as he has neither added anything to it nor shortened it.”34

4.2.1.4.5. Comparing Orally Transmitted Text of a Ḥādīth with Written Version.

177

“Thereare many examples of the use of this method, but only two will suffice for the illustration. Muhammad b. Muslim and al-Fadl b. ‘Abbād were learning a ḥadīth in the presence of Abū Zur‘ah. Muhammad transmitted a ḥadīth which was not accepted by al-Fadl, and they argued together, then asked Abū Zur‘ah to say who was right. Abū Zur‘ah referred to a book to find the said ḥadīth, where it became clear that Muhammad b. Muslim was mistaken.

A ḥadīth was transmitted by Sufyān through Ibn Masu’ud, regarding the raising of the hands while going into Rukū’. Yahya b. ‘Adam said that he checked the book of ‘Abdullah b. Idrīs, and could not find the sentence in question. Commenting on this, Bukhārī commends the practice because a book is more accurate [Ahfaz] in the eyes of scholars.”35

4.2.1.5. Rational Criticism of Ḥadīth Texts.

Al-Mu‘allmī al-Yamanī, says that the use of wisdom or rationality was applied in learning aḥādīth, teaching aḥādīth Judging the narrators and evaluating the authenticity of the text of ḥadīth.36

In short it was utilized at each and every stage of the preservation and diffusion of ḥadīth.

Abi Hātim al- Rāzī says that rational examination of the text of aḥādīth is essential to prove that the hadith be worthy of the Prophet. He notes that the goodness of a dinar is known when it is measured against another. Thus if it differs in redness and purity, it will be known that it is counterfeit. A diamond is evaluated by measuring it against another one. If it differs in brilliance and hardness, it will be known to be glass. The authenticity of a ḥadīth is known by its coming from reliable narrators and the statement itself must be worthy of being the statement of Prophethood.37

Earlier as well as later traditionists like Ibn al-Qayyim, Khatīb Baghdādī have laid down certain reasonable rules for the content criticism of ḥadīth texts. By following these rules, aḥādīth can easily be tested and verified either they are worthy of the Prophet or not. According to Ibn Qayyim, there are a lot of techniques and methods by which aḥādīth can be examined through the testing of matn without going into their īsnāds.

178

Abū Bakr Ibn al- Tayyib remarks that it is a proof of the forged character of a tradition that it be against reason or common experience; or that it conflict with the explicit text of the Qur’ān and the Mutawatir tradition, or the consensus (ijmā’); or that it contains the report of an important event taking place in the presence of a large number of people (when it is related by a single individual); or that it lays down severe punishment for minor faults, or promises high rewards for insignificant good deeds.38

Ibn al- Mahdī and Abū Zara has expressed that in fact, the only sure guidance in the determination of the genuineness of a tradition is a faculty that a traditionist develops through a long, continuous study of the ḥadīths, and as a result of continuous discussion of them with other scholars.39

All such research, of course, must be reconciled with a historical awareness of the circumstances (asbāb al-wurūd) in which a given Tradition was generated, for many hadiths ware relevant only to the early period of the Prophet’s ministry, and were later abrogated by other teachings.40

Some of such very many rules are being mentioned to prove the content criticism of hadith texts among Muslims. Following are the common symptoms that help us to judge and consider the reports as weak and spurious because of the weak points in their subject matter.

4.2.1.5.1. The Statements that Contradict the Established Historical Facts. i. The ḥadīth written by Buhkārī that the verse of the Qur’ān (XLIX,9) which runs: ‘And if two parties of the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them’ refers to the conflict between the sincere Companions and the followers of Abd Allah ibn Ubayy, has been criticized by Ibn Baṭṭāl, who points out that the verse refers to a quarrel between two groups of Muslims, whereas Ibn Ubayy had not accepted Islam even outwardly at the time the verse was revealed.41 ii. Another ḥadīth reads:

179

“Ali said “I am the slave of Allah and the brother of His Prophet S. A. W. and I am the greater Siddīq. No one can claim it after me except a liar. I prayed seven years before the other people.”42

According to the text of this tradition, ‘Alī is reported to have said that he embraced Islām seven years earlier than any other Muslim embraced it including Abū Bakar, ‘Uthmān, and Khadīja. But the fact is that a number of people like Abū Bakar, zaid and Khadīja had embraced Islam before ‘Alī. This is why Ibn al-Jaūzī comment about the texts of this report in these words:

“Another fact which proves that this ḥadīth is false is that this runs against the historical fact that Khadīja, Zaid and Abū Bakar embraced Islam earlier.’ ‘Umar was the forty first person to accept Islam in the sixth year of the Prophethood.”43

Dhahbī also points out the irreasonability in the text of this ḥadīth, he says:

“This is false (Batil) because when the Prophet received the revelation the first time, Khadīja, Abū Bakar, Bilāl and Zaid were among the early believers who embraced Islam either before’‘Alī or just after him by a few hours. They all worshipped Allah with the Prophet. Then from where does the story of seven years come? It is quite possible that the reporter might have been mistaken in hearing the exact words.’ ‘Alī might have said: I have prayed to Allah with His Prophet when I was seven years old.”44 iii. Another ḥadīth goes against the facts of history and is considered spurious because of its controversial text. It is reported that the Holy Prophet said:

“My ummah is to be in five classes. For forty years there will be the people of kindness and love for relatives till one hundred and twenty years, then those of back-biting and inclined towards severing relation till one hundred and sixty years. Then there will be disruption after disruption and (people will call for) safety.”45

Suhaib Ḥasan speaks about the fallacy in the text of this tradition. He says:

180

“Not much need is left to discuss the text itself when the Ḥadīth doesn’t sound good on the grounds of Īsnād. Nevertheless a sharp glance at the test can easily reveal its fallacy.

According to this Ḥadīth, the whole Ummah is divided into five generations lasting up to two hundred years. Whereas Muslims as Ummah had never been extinct throughout the history since the time of the Prophet till the present day. Muslims, after the passing of the second century, were not totally different from those at the end of the first century politically, socially and religiously. Thus, such classification can hardly be justified.”46

4.2.1.5.2. Fanciful Statements that the Prophet could not have Made.

The Holy Prophet’s each and every word with its spirit was a part of divine revelation. He did not speak even a single word from outside the sphere of the revelation. So, it is certain about Him that He was a store of wisdom and used to speak and act in a reasonable style. He never tried to please the people by fanciful sayings and deeds. Therefore any fanciful report fathered to him shall be considered spurious and against the dignity of the temper of the Holy Prophet. For example, a spurious tradition fathered to the Holy Prophet was “Whoever pronounces lā Ilāh, God creates from this sentence a bird with seventy thousand tongues…”47

According to Khatīb, al- Baghdādī, traditions establishing a disproportionately high reward for insignificant good deeds or disproportionately severe punishments for ordinary sins must be rejected.48

4.2.1.5.3. Traditions Mentioning the Superior Virtue of Persons, Tribes, and Particular places.

In the view point of Khatīb Baghāddī, all the traditions mentioning the superior virtue of persons, tribes, and particular places should be generally rejected.38 For example, the ḥadīth reported by Ibn Majā on the excellence of his home city Qazvīn has been declared forged by the traditionists.

181

4.2.1.5.4. The Traditions Attributed to the Prophets not Matching the Temper and Nature of Prophethood. 5. The ḥadīth reported by al-Būkharī that Abrāham will pray to God on Doomsday, saying ‘O Lord, Thou hast promised me that Thou wilt not humiliate me on the Day of Judgment’ is criticized and rejected by al-Ismā‘ilī, whose judgment is reported by Ibn Hajar.50 6. Most of the traditions concerning with the advent of the Dajjāl and the Mahdī towards the end of time are declared by the traditionists to be spurious and are included in the mawdū at works.51 7. The report that if the Prophet’s son Ibrāhīm had lived, he would have been a Prophet, has been severely criticized by al- Nowawī, Ibn Abd al- Barr and Ibn al- Athīr; while al- Shawkānī has included it on his list of forged traditions.52 • The traditions narrated by some traditionists to the effect that ‘he who loves, keeps chaste, and dies, dies as a martyr’, is declared by Ibn al-Qayyim as forged and baseless. He Comments that even if the īsnād of this ḥadīth were as bright as the sun, it would not cease to be wrong and fictitious.53

4.2.1.6. General Principles for the Criticism of the Texts of Ḥadīth.

• A tradition must not be contrary to the other traditions which have already been accepted by the authorities on the subject as authentic and reliable. Nor should it contradict the text of the Qur’ān, a Mutawatir ḥadīth, the absolute consensus of the community or the accepted basic principles of Islam.54 • A ḥadīth must never be contrary to the reason, common sense and established laws of nature. • Traditions expressing excellent properties of certain sections of the Qur’ān may not be taken as authentic. • Traditionists that consist of detailed properties of future events with the dates of their happening should be rejected.55 • The text of ḥadīth should not violate the basic rules of Arabic gramma.

182

These are only few of many examples and rules applied by the scholars of hadith to evaluate the whole ofḥadīth literature on rational bases. Supplemented by īsnād criticism, these tests of rationality ensured that ḥadīth literature was transmitted in as pure a form as possible, with every effort made to eliminate the suspected material.

In the light of these rules, a large number of aḥādīth which are included even in very sound and authentic collections of Ḥadīth have been rejected just because their contents and subject matter did not fulfill the requirements of these rules. Much material of this type has been identified and included in special anthologies of weak or forged traditions, like those of Ibn al-Jaūzī, Mullā‘Alī al-Qārī, al-Shawkānī, and others. Shawkānī’s collection is perhaps the most judicious, drawing on the researches of earlier writers, and giving the names of the ḥadīth works in which the ḥadīths in question are to be found. Moreover, in many cases, he has identified the narrators who were responsible for the forgeries.

Keeping in view the whole efforts of the hadith scholars, it seems evident that the objection of orientalists that the Muslims focused on the criticism of īsnād and neglected the criticism of the text of aḥādīth is absurd.

There might be two reasons behind this objection raised by the orientalists.

i. As the orientalists research methodology shows that they mostly remain in search of some weak points in the Islamic literature. They do this because they are prejudiced and are never ready to accept Islam as a true divine religion. ii. Second reason might be that they (orientalists) be ignorant or unaware of the efforts of the Muslims to evaluate and test the texts and contexts of ḥadīth literature they made throughout their history from the very life of the Holy Prophet up to this day. But when we see them drowning into the depth of Islamic literature with their full energies, it looks almost clear that they are not unaware of these efforts of the Muslim. Therefore we can conclude that their prejudice and partiality is heavier than their spirit to search and admit the authenticity of real facts.

183

RefrencesChapter : IV

1 Guillaume, p. 23.

2 Ibid. , p.55.

3 Ibid. , p. 70.

4 Noth, Albrecht, Ibn al-Jawzī’s Categories of Ḥadīth Forgers, The Formation of Classical Islamic World, vol.28, p. 309-16.

5 Shāi‘ī, Muhammad b Idris, al-Umm, 7 vols. , 1st ed. , (Cairo,

1321-1325).

6 Qur’ān , 49:6.

7 Bukhārī, Saḥīḥ, Translated into English by Muhammad Mohsin Khan, 9 vols. , Madina, 1976.

(note: in coming chapters, the aḥādīth taken from this edition will berefered in the same method.)

8 Muslim, Saḥīḥ, English Eranslation by ‘Abd al-HamīṢiddīqī, 4 vols. , (Lahore 1972), 2:614.

9 Muslim,Ṣaḥīḥ. (English Editiontion), 3:993.

10 Ibid. , 4:1332.

184

11 Ibid. , 3:918.

12 Suyuti, Tahdhīb al-Khawās min Akadhīb al-Qussas,

(Beruit. 1972), PP . 32-33

13 Ibid. , 1:285.

14 Bukhārī,Ṣaḥīḥ, ( English Edition) 2:48.

15 Baihaqi, abū Bakr Ahmad b al-Hussain al-Sunan al-Kubrā, (10 vols, (Hyderabad, 1344 A.H.) 9/92.

16 Muslim,Ṣaḥīḥ, ( English Edition) 4:1452

17 Ḥanbal, 2/38.

18 Muslim, (English Edition) 2:440.

19 Qur‘ān, 35:18

20 Muslim, (Arabic Edition),2/10.

21 Al-Qāsimī, Jamāl al-Din: Qawa’id al-Taḥdīth, (Cairo, 1961), p.324.

22 Qur’ān, 33:70.

23 Ibn Qayyim, Al- Mannār al-Munīf: Cf; Ẓafar, Dr. ‘Abd ul Raūf, ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth, p.313.

24 Tadrīb, p.100.

25 Dārmi, Sunan, Vol. 1, p.152.

26 Ḥadīth Methodology, p. 52.

27 Haykal, Hussain, Muhammad, The life of Muhammad,

(North America Trust Publications, 1976), p. xxxii.

28 Ibn Jaūzī, Kitāb aI-Maūḍuāt, Kitab at-Tawhīd,

Bab fi-Allah Azza wa Jall.

29 Ibid. , p.99.

30 Dārmī, 1/153.

185

31 On Schacht’s Origins, p.112.

32 Ibn Ḥibbān, al-Majrūhīn’ (Aya Sofiya Ms. 496, Istanbul) 11a.

33 Tamyīz , pp.136-138.

34 Muslim, Ilm, 14.

35 Bukhārī, Raf al-Yadain.

36 Tamyīz, pp.66-67.

37 Ibid. , pp. 68-69.

38 Ibid. , p. 100.

39 Ibid. , p. 89.

40 Al-Khatīb, Muḥammad b. ‘Ajjāj, al- Sunnah qabl al-Tadwīn, (Cairo, 1383), p. 243.

41 Shawkānī, p. 144.

42 Ibn Mājah, Muhammad b. Yazid, al-Sunan, 2 vols. , Edited by F. ‘Abdul Bāqī, Cairo, 1954, 1/57.

43 Ibn al-Jaūzī, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. ‘Alī al-Mauḍū‘āt al-Kubrā, (Maktaba Salafia Madina, 1386/1966). 1/340.

44 Al-Dhahabī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, al-Talkhīs, Printed with Mustadrak al-Hākim, 3:112.

45 Ibn Mājah, al-Sunan, 2/502.

46 Criticism. P. 234.

47 On Schacht’s, p. 114.

48 Khatīb, P. 208-20.

49 Ibid. , p. 244.

50 Fath al-Bārī, 8/354.

51 Ḥadīth Literature, p.115.

52 Shawkānī, p. 144.

186

53 Ibn Qayyim, Zād al-Ma‘ād, (Kānpūr, 1298 A.H.) , p.97.

54 Khatīb, p. 242.

55 Ibid. , p.244.

CHAPTER V

THE SCIENCE OF THE CRITICISM OF ḤADĪTH AUTHORITY AND AUTHENTICITY OF ISNĀD SYSTEM INḤADĪTH LITERATURE

187

Chapter V

AUTHORITY AND AUTHENTICITY OF ISNĀD SYSTEM IN ḤADĪTH LITERATURE

5.1. Isnād System (Chain of Transmitters)

The steps we have described in detail in the fourth chapter were relevant to the text of ḥadīth coming from the mouth of the ḥoly Prophet. Now in this chapter we have to discuss the techniques and methods through which the charactor and memory of the transmitters were examined.The whole system that deals the personality of narrators is named ‘Isnād system’. This whole Isnād system consists of the following techniques.

5.1.1. Asma -ur- Rijāl.

Through this technique, Muslim scholars of ḥadīth exercised great caution and took much pain to collect the information about the transmitters of traditions that little room or scope is left forfurther information and investigation. It is because, no reporterin the chain of any ḥadīth is left untouched. The charactor, educational capability and the memory of every transmitter has been described as it was. These techniques helped the scholars discover and search the names, title (alqāb), filial appellations (kunyat), fatherhood, (ibniyyet), the home lands and dates and placesof the birth and death of all the scholars whoever transmitted ever a single ḥadīth. The professional scholars of ḥadīth criticism alsodiscovered the places to where they traveled in persuit Of the knowledge of ḥadīth. They also found and described the teachers from whome they learnt and narrated aḥādīth and their students to whom they convayed the knowledge.

5.1.2. Ilm al Jarḥ Wat Ta‘dil: Disparaging and authenticating the narrators.

188

• Ilm al-Jarh. Jarh literal means to heart someone with a weapon. When a judge denies the evidence of a witness because of his lie, he actually impliments the Jarh.

It terminologically means to point out those shortcomings or weak points in the character of the narrators of ḥadīth because of which their trustworthiness (‘adāla), is questioned and the traditions narrated by them are called weak or are rejected.

• Ilm al Ta‘dīl:

Ta‘dīl is derived from ‘adl whichis antonym of injustice. Adala is the specific quality in the caractor of the narrator that makes him eligible to transmit aḥādīth to others.

Collective terminological meanings of Jarh Wa Ta‘dīl.

This genre of knowledge disparage or authenticate the capability and personality of the narrators.

In the coming lines we try to summarize the causes of both Jarḥ and Ta‘dīl.

5.1.2.1. Causes of Jarḥ:

Causes of Jarh of the transmitters is catagarized into two groups.

5.1.2.1.1. Causes of Jarḥ Owing to the Charractor of the Transmitters.

The first of these tests was that of the character of the narrator. A reliable narrator needed to be ‘Adl that is, acceptable within the Islamic code of ethics. The scholar Ibn al-Mubārak (118-181 A.H.) defines the reliable narrator as one who prays in congregation, does not drink nabidh, is not lawless in his life, does not lie, and one who does not suffer from mental defect. A man may be great scholar, but if his morals are suspect, then a ḥadīth related by him is not acceptable.

All scholars, apart from the companions themselves, whose characters had never been doubted, were measured against this yardstick. In most cases, however, it must be admitted, one has to rely on

189 contemporary authorities for evidence.Following shortcomings in the character of transmitter cause his weakness in his profession.

• Lie (kidhb). The transmitter who speaks lie(s), consciously or inconsciously is called a lier.The reports of such a narrator are not accepted.

In ḥadīth literature, the transmitter whoattributes lie(s) to the Holy Prophet is called a lier. The reports of such a narrator are not accepted.

• Being Accused of Telling lies(Tuhmat ul kidhb). It is a man about whom it has been proved that he tells a in his public and social life. According to the ḥadīth critics, such person’s transmissions are not accepted. • Wickedness (Fisq).

The transmitter who is wicked of denying the conduct of the Almighty and does not follow his straight wayas described in the Holy Quran.The transmission of such immoral character are not considered valid.

• Innovation (bid‘a).

Its proper opposite is sunnah. The act of inventing some new rite and considering it as a part of Islamic ritualsis called bid‘a. Such act has been abandoned and condemned by the Holy Prophet. The person of such character is not liable to transmit aḥādīth.

• Being Unknown (Jihālat ur Rāvī).

The transmitter nothing is known about who’s name or character. Such unknown person is not permitted to transmit aḥādīth.

5.1.2.1.2. Causes of the Rejection of Ḥadīth owing to the Literary Capability of the Transmitter.

• Plenty of mistakes (Kathrat ul Aghlāt). The transmitter who comit many mistakes inconsciously. According to theḥadīth critics, making small errors in professional activities does not harm the status of the transmitter but if he makes gross mistakes in the preservation or transmission of aḥādīth, his transmission are not accepted.

190

• Neglectfulness (Kathrat ul Ghaflat) It is to loose attention of prefessional duties or to forget things because of carelessness. Besides the miner negligence, neglectfulness on a large scale causes the weakness and rejection of such transmitter’s traditions. Theneglegence happening sometimes may be ignored but the negligence that happens always or at most of the accassions is called gross negligence and is not ignored in anyway. • Opposition to the Thiqāt ( Mukhalifat ut Thiqāt). The habit of a transmitter to transmit the traditions that contradict the transmissions of those other trustworthy transmitters either equal to him ormore trustworthy than himself. This apposition may be in five cases, detail of which does not suit here in this work. • Illusions (Aohām) These are the misleading appearances which do not exist. In ḥadīth transmission transmitter misunderstands something but transmits it as if it were correct and accurate. Such victim of misunderstandings is considered weak and his transmissions are nemed M‘alūl. These traditions look accurate appearantly but are affected by some hidden defect. • Weak Memory (Sū’ul Ḥifẓ) Bad or weak memory is also a defect in a transmitter’s eligibility of imparting aḥādīth. The reports of the transmitters, affected by the weakness of memory are called Shādh that means to differ from the transmissions of other more trustworthy traditionists. This imperfection may be of following two kinds. i. Weakness of Memory by Birth. Such type of transmitter is permanantly uneligible to transmit aḥādīth until he gets rid of this discase. ii. Weakness of Memory by Coincident. This defect or mishap happens with some one like coming of all age. Happening of some accident, burning of books or at great loss of some family member’s life etc. In such case, the time of mishap with the transmitter will make the difference and will be defined first. Then the transmissions

191

narrated by him before the mishap will be accepted and the transmissions narrated by him after the coincident will be called Shadh and will be rejected. 5.1.2.2. Mandatory Qualities for the Ta‘dīl of a Transmitter. According to the critereria of ḥadīth critics, it is necessary for each transmitter to be ‘adl. ‘Adl is a combination of some qualities that make a person eligible to transmit the traditions. These mandatory qualities arebeing described here. i. Islam. Being a Muslim is necessary to transmit aḥādīth. Because the transmission of aḥādīth is a passion for the betterment and preaching of the true knowledge and teachings of Islam and its Prophet and a non-Muslim cannot be expected to meet all such requirements, therefore he cannot be given the certificate of the transmission of ḥadīth. ii. Maturity (Bulūghah). Transmission of ḥadīth is a big responsibility that cannot be fulfilled by a child or a youngand immature boy. Therefore the ḥadīth critics have defined this rule as binding not to accept the transmissions of children. iii. Wisdom (‘Aql). Knowledge of ḥadīth critics of a lot of fields that require wisdom and sensein the personality of a transmitter. Neither a man lacking such qualities is capable to transmit aḥādīth nor he can be certified to transmit the knowledge of ḥadīth. iv. Piety (Taqwa’).

Transmission and preaching of the knowledge of ḥadīth is a sacred job. It needs sincerity and fear of God. A hypocrite or insincere transmitter may be harmful for this sacred source of Islamic teachings. Therefore, piety and holiness are considered mandatory for this mission.

v. Nobility /Morality (Ḥusn ul Khulq). It is also called Murūwa that means to possess those moral values because of which a man is known as noble and a model of morality. This Murūwa is considered mandatory in the character of transmitter of ḥadīth because such moral values prevent the transmitter’s charactor from immoral

192

activities and help him transmit aḥādīth as accurately as possible. 5.1.2.3. Classification of Aḥādīth.

Ḥadīth can be graded into two groups Accepted or Maqbūl and Rejected or Mardūd.

Theaccepted aḥādīth are, subdivided into two groups.

i. Ṣaḥiḥ (Authentic)

ii. Ḥasan (agreeable)

Most accurate of all of these is Ṣaḥiḥ (Authentic). Here the basic requirments for ḥadīth Ṣaḥiḥ are being described.

5.1.2.4. Requirments for Ḥadīth Ṣaḥīḥ(Authentic). i. The whole of the chain of transmitters should be complete from the last narrator back to the final source. ii. It is one of the requirments of Saḥiḥḥadīth that it should not be isolated or shādh. It means that a ḥadīth should not contradict those traditions which have been narrated by the higher accuracy and recognition than the transmitter of the ḥadīth under discussion.

Ḥadīth should not have any hidden defect. For instance a trustworthy transmitter narrates a report as coming from the mouth of the Holy Prophet. On the other hand majority of the reports father it to a companion.Here the opposition of one scholar to the majority shows that there is some hidden defect because its transmitter ascribed to the Holy Prophet by mistake while the majority narrated it accuraty. Such type of ḥadīth is calledMua‘llal affected by ‘illa.

iii. All of the transmitters of a ḥadīth should be ‘adil or trustworthy and dhābit or accurate professionally. If any weak narrator is found in its chain, it would fall down from the grade of Saḥiḥ. 5.2 Origins of Isnād System and the Orientalists.

There are different views of Isnād experts about the origin and basic source from which Islamic Isnād system has been taken. The orientalists have differed on this issue. Some of them maintain that the Islamic isnād system is not initially originated by the Muslims but they have

193 borrowed it from various pre-Islamic religions and customs. On the other hand, some other impartial orientalists do not agree with them. They accept the Islamic point of view regarding the origin of isnād and reject the statements of partial orientalists.

In the coming lines, we present both views of orientalists about the basis of isnād. These are as below:

5.2.1. The Origin of Isnād System is not Islamic but the Muslims have Borrowed it from Others.

Numberless European scholars have tried to address this issue of the origins of isnād. Leone Caetani and Horovitz hold that the origins of isnād system are not pure Islamic because ignorant Arabs were not capable to initiate such a large technical system for the safety and defence of ḥadīth. Caetani says that the isnād could not have originated among the Arabs. The vild desolation of the Arabian steppe, and the restive character of the primitive, ignorant, uncivilized and Semetic Arabs were not congenial to the development of a rigorous tradition. 1

If the theory of Caetani, based apparently on prejudice, is accepted, it would be possible only that isnād system did not exist with the expertise of the Arabs. But question arises that from whom this system arose? Caetani has not given any origin of Isnād other than Islam and the Arabs.

Horovitz, however, goes a bit ahead and presents a few examples from the literature of Jews. He points out that, before the Arabs, isnād were also used by the Jews. He also describes that the use of Isnād in the literature of Jews can be traced in the past, as back as the age of Mosesand by the age of the creation of Talmud, and chain of transmitters possessed a considerable length.2

In his lengthy writing on this issue, Horovitz has not proved by any instance that these jewish Isnāds can really be traced back to the age of Moses.

194

Now we turn towards the statement of orientalists in which they admit the glory of Islamic history as well as they hold that Isnād system with its technicalities is a unique achievement and invention of Muslim scholars of tradition literature.

5.2.2. Technical and Systematic use of Isnād is not Pre- Islamic.

Horovitz says “In the talmudic literature, there is no idea of chronological method, and the oldest extant work attempting such an arrangement was composed after 885 A.D- more than a century later than the earliest Islamic work on isnād-critique and from the fact that the important Jewish works [of this period] had been composed in the Islamic dominions, it may be inferred that this historical interest was due to the Islamic influence.”3

We observe that Horovitz is a bit confused on this issue because in his quotation mentioned earlier, he says that the use of isnād in Jewish literature can be traced back up to the time of Moses but does not give a single example from the literature of jews in which the chain of transmitters goes back to the time of Moses uninterrupted. And here he accepts that the chronological use of isnāds by Jews in their literature is influenced by the technical Islamic literature on isnād.

Robson goes ahead with an open heart upon the uniqueness of the literary history of the Muslims. He says :

“In the gospels as they stand we don’t have the various elements of the sources separated out for us as we do through the “Isnāds” of muslim traditions where at least apparently, the transmission is traced back to the source.”4

David Margoliouth also denies any origin of isnād other than the Islamic one. He concludes that the Romans and Greeks rarely used anything akin to isnād systm.5

Another famous orientalist Sprenger could not remain silent from admitting fame and oneness of Muslims in their use of isnad for the preservation of their golden history. He says:

195

“The glory of the literature of the Muhammadans is its literary biography. There is no nation nor has there been any which like them has during the 12 centuries recorded the life of every man of letters. If the biographical records of the musalmāns are collected, we should probably have accounts of the lives of half a million of distinguished persons, and it would be found that there is not a decennium of their history, nor a place of importance which has not its representation.”6

5.2.3. Muslim Scholars’ Point of View about the Origins of Isnād System.

Muslim scholars admit that there might be some natural methods for the transmission or transition of reports about past in pre- islamic times. But these limited and ambiguous methods were quite natural and were not technical and scientific as those of the Muslims. Ibn Ḥazm (d.364-456), a wellknown figure in the history of Islamic thoughts and literature presents six kinds methods of the transmission of knowledge from the Holy Prophet to the next generations. Here are the types stated by him:

A. Transmission from the prophet to future generations through an overwhelming number of persons, Muslims and non-Muslims of every generation, by parallel narration, without any difference of opinion between them. B. Unanimous transmission by all learned Muslims of every generation since the time of the Prophet. C. Transmission from the Prophet by reliable persons of known identity and established reliability of every generation, each of them starting the name of his authority. D. Transmission by any one of three classes of transmitters just mentioned, not from the Prophet, but from a person belonging to the generation following him, the earliest transmitter being silent about the source of his information. E. Transmission by any of the various classes of persons mentioned above, from the Prophet himself, but having in the chain of narrators a person who is known either to be a liar, or careless in his statements, or whose reliability has been questioned.

196

F. Transmission by a chain of transmitters similar to that of the first three classes, but stopping either at a companion or a follower, or at any Imam after them, who did not make any reference to the Prophet in his statement.7 After writing these types of transmissions Ibn Ḥazam states some details of their use by Christians and jews. His research concludes that first three types of transition of knowledge do not exist in the literature of Christians and Jews. He says that these two religions are based on new testament and Torah. According to him, the chain of torah cannot go back to Moses in any case, but it stops several generations short of him. He also states that new testament is transmitted by five transmitters, who’s reliability and identity is not out of question. Ibn Ḥazam holds the final opinion about these first three classes that they are the unique feature of Islamic historical literature. He also concludes that the last three types of transmission are found in Christian as well as in the literature of Jewish. First of these last three is oftenly used in Jewish literature while only a single example of it is used in Christian literature. He says further that the examples of the last two classes are found in a good considerable number in Christian and Jewish literature. He also points out the details of the differences between the forms of transmission used in Islamic literature and those used by the Christians and the Jews. Zubayr Sidīquī also gives a few examples of the use of Isnād in the literature of Indian Hindu, Buddhist and Jain literature long before Islam. About these examples, he speaks thus: “An occasional use for instance, can be found in ancient Hindu, Buddisht and Jain literature. In the great epic, the Mahabharata, were read: ‘Vysda composed it, Ganesa served as a scribe, and the work was handed down by vaisampayana, who communicated it to the king Janamejaya. Sauti, who was present at the time, heard it and narrated it to the assembly of sages.’ The Puranas also contain some short isnāds of this type. The Sutras (exegetical works on Vedic literature) contain brief chains mentioning some of the transmitters through whom they have been handed down.”8

5.3. Status of Isnād in Muslim Tradition.

197

Muslims have based their criticism of the transmitters on the rules of the Holy Qur’ān. Qur’ān says:

هِ ِ ِ ِ ٍ ِ ِ ٍ ِ ِِ 9 ََي أَي َُّها الذي َن آََمنُوا إ ْن َجاءَُك ْم فَاس ٌق بنَ بَأ فَ تَ بَ يه نُوا أَ ْن تُصيبُوا قَ ْوًما ِبََهالَة فَ تُ ْصب ُحوا عَلَى َما فَ عَلْتُ ْم ََندمني " “O you who believe : If ever there comes to you someone unknown to you and relates to you a message, an event or an incident, then be objectively certain of the truth to preclude risk of error and the consequence of wrong action and of injuring the reputation of a people or defaming them in ignorance, and later be pitifully regretful for what you have done.”

It says more:

" ِ ِ ِِ ِ ِ ِ هِ َوإِذَا َجاءَُه ْم أَْمٌر م َن اْْلَْم ِن أَِو ا ْْلَْوف أَذَاعُوا به َولَْو َرُّدوهُ إََِل الهر ُسول َوإََِل أُوِل اْْلَْم ِر منْ ُه ْم لَعَل َمهُ الذي َن ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ "10 يَ ْستَ نْبطُونَهُ منْ ُه ْم َولَْوًَل فَ ْضلُ ا هَّلل عَلَيْ ُك ْم َوَر ْْحَتُهُ ًَلته بَ ْعتُُم ال هشيْطَا َن إهًل قَليًل “When these people learn by credible or incredible information to the credit of the Muslims or against them, they spread it as news and circulate it by way of rumour. Had they referred it to the Messenger and, in his absence, to those in authority among them, it would have been in accordance with divine standard. The Messenger and/or those in authority would have intelligently examined the news and rationalized the matter and would have known the facts and placed them in their true bearings. Had it not been for Allah's efficacious grace and mercy abounding in you, you people would have gone astray, except a few.”

So, it is evident that in the both verses mentioned above, the Holy Qur’ān focuses on the need of scrutiny of the reporters before going to act upon their reports.

In the same way, the Holy Prophet has also encouraged his companions to credit or discredit the personalities from whom they intend to receive the guidance in the spheres of religion. The Holy Prophet said about Abdullah Ibn ‘Umer:

" ِ ِ " 11 إِ هن عَبْ َد ا هَّلل َرُجلٌ َصال ٌح “No doubt Abdullah (b. ‘Umar) is a pious person”

On the other hand, Holy Prophet has also approved to discredit a man who is an evil doer and is not able to be trusted in.

198

The reporter narrates that Ᾱishā said:

" ه ه ِ ه ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ أَن َرُجًل ا ْستَأْذَ َن عَلَى النهِِ ِب َصلى هللاُ عَلَيْه َ و َسل َم، فَ لَهما َرآهُ قَا َل: بئْ َس أَ ُخو العَش ريَة، َوبئْ َس ابْ ُن العَشريَة ه ه ِ ه ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ فَ لَهما َجلَ َس تَطَل َق النهِ ُِّب َصلى هللاُ عَلَيْه َو َسل َم ِف َو ْجهه َوانْ بَ َس َط إلَيْه، فَ لَهما انْطَلَ َق الهرُجلُ قَالَ ْت لَهُ عَائ َشةُ: ََي ِ ِ ه ِ ِ ِ ِ ه َر ُسوَل ا هَّلل، ح َني َرأَيْ َت الهرُج َل قُ لْ َت لَهُ َك َذا َوَك َذا، ُُثه تَطَلْق َت ِِف َو ْج ِهه َوانْ بَ َسطْ َت إلَيْه؟ فَ َقا َل َر ُسوُل ا هَّلل َصلى ِ ه ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ هللاُ عَلَيْه َو َسل َم: »ََي عَائ َشةُ، َم ََّت عَه ْدتِِن فَ هحا ًشا، إ هن َشهر النها ِس عنْ َد ا هَّلل َمنِْزلَةً يَ ْوَم القيَاَمة َم ْن تَ َرَكهُ النها ُس ِ 12 ات َقاءَ َش ِره “Obviously a man asked permission to meet the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet, before having seen him, said vicked brother of tribe, the Holy Prophet gave him due regard and met him in a pleasant mode. When he went away, ‘Ᾱisha asked him, O Messenger of the Almighty: You said this and that when you sam him, then you regarded him and met him pleasantly? O ‘Ᾱisha: When have you seen me immoral? No doubt worst of the people is he whom people leave to get rid of the harm from him”

Another comes to us from the Holy Prophet:

ِ ِ ه ِ ه عَ ْن َسْه ٍل، قَا َل: َمهر َرُج ٌل عَلَى َر ُسول ا هَّلل َصلى هللاُ عَلَيْه َو َسل َم، فَ َقا َل: »َما تَ ُقولُوَن ِِف َه َذا؟« قَالُوا: َحِر ٌّي إِ ْن ِ ِ ِِ َخطَ َب أَ ْن ي ُنْ َك َح، َوإِ ْن َشَف َع أَ ْن يُ َشهف َع، َوإِ ْن قَا َل أَ ْن يُ ْستََم َع، قَا َل: ُُثه َس َك َت ، فََمهر َرُجلٌ م ْن فُ َقَراء املُ ْسلم َني، فَ َقا َل: »َما تَ ُقولُوَن ِِف َه َذا؟« قَالُوا: َحِر ٌّي إِ ْن َخطَ َب أَ ْن ًلَ ي ُنْ َك َح، َوإِ ْن َشَف َع أَ ْن ًلَ يُ َشهف َع، َوإِ ْن قَا َل أَ ْن ًلَ ِ ه ِ ه ِ ِ ِ ِ 13 يُ ْستََم َع، فَ َقا َل َر ُسوُل ا هَّلل َصلى هللاُ عَلَيْه َو َسل َم : »َه َذا َخْريٌ م ْن م ْلء اْلَْر ِض مثْ َل َه َذا«

Once the Holy Prophet said:

"واشهدوا ذوى عدل منكم"14

“And make eye witness two impartials from among you ”

Another tradition also highlights the importance and validity of the isnād in such way.

"عن ابن ابى بكرة عن ابيه أن النبيى صلى هللا عليه وسلم )فى خطبة يوم النحر( ليبلغ الشاهد الغائب فان الشاهد عسى ان يبلغ من هو اوعى له منه. 15

“It is reported on the authority of Ibn Abi Bakr who reported on the authority of his father who told that the Holy Prophet in his address on the day of sacrifice, said; Those who are absent. Perhaps the present one may convey (The Ḥadīth) to the person who may memorize it more firmly than the reported”

199

The Holy Prophet called the person a lier who transmits a report from the Holy Prophet inspite of knowing that the report is a lie. He says:

"عن سمرة بن جندب والمغيرة بن شعبه قاال قال رسول هللا ِ ِ ٍ ِ َم ْن َح هد َث عَِ ِن ِبَديث ي َُرى أَنههُ َكذ ٌب، ِِ "16 فَ ُهَو أَ َح ُد الْ َكاذب َني

“It is reported on the authority of Samura ibn Jundab and Mughīra b. Sh‘uba, they say that the Holy Prophet said that he is one of the liars who reported from me a ḥadīth while he Knew that it was a lie ”

It is one of the greatest lies of the world, because of its effects, to relate fabricated and baseless report to the Holy Prophet. Therefore,credibility of the reporters by whom the report is reported is very much important. And, it is impossible to know properly about the transmitters without the Isnād.

5.3.1. Companions and the Isnād System.

The whole of the isnād system means the scrutiny of the narrators of a report. Companions, in the light of the teachings of their leader, used to confirm the validity and authenticity of a report by requiring witnesses of that report. After the death of the Holy Prophet Abū Bakar, the first righteous caliph, used to demand from the reporter a witness of the report. According to Hākīm al-nishāpūrī, he was the first among those who defended the Holy Prophet’s sunnah from falsehood.17

This credit goes to him because first of all he maintained certain strictness regarding the Ḥadīth of the Holy Prophet.

Once a woman came to Abū Bakar to ask about the inheritance of a grandmother. Abū Bakar said to her ‘I do not find any guidance about it in Qur’ān or Ḥadīth, I should tell you after asking the people about it’ When he asked the people, the companion Mughīra b. Sho‘ba told him that according to Prophet’s Ḥadīth a grand mother should be given one sixth of the inheritance. Abū Bakar demanded a witness of this report upon which Muhammad b. (Maslama) offered this witness and approved the report of Mughira. After this Abū Bakr considered it a valid evidence and decided his verdict according to it.

200

وهو الذى سن للمحدثين التثبت فىى النقل وربما كان يتوقف فى خبر الواحد إذا ارتاب 18

“And he is the first who founded to demand the proof before receiving a report and sometimes he used to stand by in the matter of some doubtful report.”

‘Umer b. Khattāb, the second Caliph, following his predecessor, also used to demand a witness for the credibility of a report.

It is reported by Abu Said Khudrī that Abū Musa Ash‘arī knocked at the door of ‘Umer’s house at three time’s and returned after receiving no response from inside. ‘Umer sent a message behind him asking him “Why did you return from my house?” Abū Musa replied “I have listened to the Holy Prophet sayings

"اذا سلم احدكم ثالثا فلم يجب فليرجع"19

“When anyone of you does not receive any reply upon having knocked at the door for three times then he should return and leave the door”

Upon which ‘Umer demanded a witness from him for this report.

Abu Said relatesrest of the story of Abū Musa in these words: Abū Musa came to us with inconstant color on his face. We asked him the reason upon which he told us and asked whether we had listened to that ḥadīth (from the Holy Prophet)? We said that all of us had listened to this ḥadīth from the Holy Prophet and sent a man from us with Abu Musa who told ‘Umer and confirmed the ḥadīth. After writing this Dhahbī deduces from it:

"ففى هذا دليل على الخبر اذا رواه ثقتان كان اقوى وارجح مما انفرد به واحد" 20

“Then it is proof in this that it will be a more accurate and authentic report when two trustworthy authorities report it than the report”

The companion ‘Alī used to take an oath with the receiving of a report from reporter on the authority of the Holy Prophet. He says himself:

“When I listened to the Holy Prophet God benefited me (from this ḥadīth) as he wished and whenever I received a hadith from anyone else, I used to take an oath.” 21

201

All the statements mentioned above indicate the reality that crediting or criticizing the personalities for a noble purpose is approved by both Qur’ān and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet. And it is also evident that the companions and the successors also used this technique for the safety, credibility, and defence of aḥādīth from the forgery .

5.3.2. Importance of Isnād in the eyes of Traditionists.

Isnād possesses vital importance in the tradition-literature in learned cireles.No tradition is considered as genuine or credible without it. It is considered as half thescience of the tradition literature because the tradition has two parts, the text and the Isnād. Isnād makes Matn as guaranteed one.

There are a lot of sayings and actions of famous personalities in history both from Muslims and Non-Muslims who credit the Isnād system as a safeguard for the text of ḥadīth.

Ibn Sirīn (d.110 A.H.) said about the credibility of Isnād in these words:

" ِ ِ ِ "22 إِ هن َه َذا الْعلْ َم دي ٌن، فَانْظُُروا عَ هم ْن ََتْ ُخ ُذوَن دينَ ُك ْم “No doubt this genre of knowledge is a part of religion, so consider from whom you get your religion.”

In an other statement, Ibn Sirīn holds that Isnād defended the hadith when people started lying in aḥādīth. He says:

" ِ ِ ِ ِ َملْ يَ ُكونُوا يَ ْسأَلُوَن عَ ِن اِْْل ْسنَاد، فَ لَهما َوقَ عَت الْفتْ نَةُ، قَالُوا: َْسُّوا لَنَا ِرَجالَ ُك ْم، فَ يُ نْظَُر إََِل أَْه ِل ال ُّسنهة فَ يُ ْؤَخ ُذ ِ ِ ِ "23 َحديثُ ُه ْم، َوي ُنْظَُر إََِل أَْه ِل الْب َدِع فََل ي ُْؤَخ ُذ َحديثُ ُه ْم “They did not ask about the isnād, but when civil war fitnah started they said ‘Name to us your men’; those who belong to Ahl al-Sunnah, their traditions were accepted and those who were innovators their traditions were neglected.”

A statement is said by Abdullah Ibn Mubārak (d.121 A.H.) on the same subject. He says :

202

"االسناد من الدين ولوال االسناد لقال من شاء ما شاء"24

“Isnād is a part of religion; were it not existed whoever wanted would say what he wished”

In another statement he said:

“Between us and the people are props,” meaning the isnād”25

Once he happened to listen to a hadith witha weak isnād upon which he remarked: “Pillars of brick are needed” 26

Once Zuhrī taunted Isḥāq b. Abu Farwā for reporting Prophetic sayings without Isnād, he said to him:

“Allah fight with you, Ibn abū Farwā! What has emboldened you against Allah that you do not attach an isnād to your tradition? You are relating traditions which have neither nos-rings nor halters.” 27

Here, Zuhrī seems to be angry with Ibn Abū-Farwā because he did not relate isnād of the tradition he reported to Zuhrī.

Auzā‘ī’ (d.157) said that departure of knowledge is simply the departure of isnād. 28

“Sufiān al thaūrī (d.161) said: “The isnād is the believer’s weapon.” 29

In another statement he holds the opinion

“The isnād is tradition’s adornment, so he who attends to it is happy.” 30

Shāfi‘ī said: “One who gets hadith without chain is like one who gathers fuel at night and does not notice a viper in it. 31

Yazid b. Zurai said, “Every religion has cavalry, and the cavalry of this religion are the men who appear in the isnād.” 32

Ibn Qutaiba (d.276) said with a mode of pride: “No people had an isnād like theirs.” 33

All of the statements mentioned above about isnād clarify that isnād had become a vital and compulsory part of ḥadīth in the very first century of the hijrah. And there is no traditionist or man of letters in any sphere of literature who denied the importance of isnād in Muslim tradition.

203

In the coming lines we shall try to highlight the importance and status of isnād in the light of the views of orientalists. Reynold A Nicholson Justifies Ibn Qutayqba’s statement with open heart in these lines. He says:

“While every impartial student will admit the justice of Ibn Qutayba’s claim that no religion has such historical attestations as Islam-laysa li- ummatin mina ‘l-umami asnadun Ka-asnadihim.” 34

James Robson accepts that only Muslims are the nation who’s religious literature is saved with the help of isnād. He adadmits this reality with open heart in his folloing statement:

“In the gospels as they stand we don’t have the various elements of the sources separated out for us as we do through the “Isnāds” of Muslim traditions where at least apparently, the transmission is traced back to the source” 35

The orientalist Sprenger speaks about the glorious preservation of the Islamic historical literature through isnād. He says:

5.4. Beginning and Development of Isnād System in Ḥadīth Literature.

Each and every companion of the Holy Prophet was fully conscious of the legal and social importance of the sunnah of their Divine leader. Because of this awareness, they used all of their sources to preserve and diffuse this genre of Islamic literature.

It was a common practice among the companions in the life of the Holy Prophet as well as after his departure that they used to transmit his Aḥādīth. A remarkable number of them scheduled their activities according to their turns of attendance in the company of the Prophet to listen and learn aḥādīth and then to inform those who had been absent during that time, So the present ones used to inform

204

the others each saying, action or the approved sunnah of the Holy Prophet. For this spread of information in accordance with the aḥādīth and sunnah of the Prophet,it is quite natural that they would have used the sentences like ‘the Holy Prophet did so and so when he was among us’ or ‘He said so and so’ or ‘He saw the companions “xyz” doing in this way and remained silent’. And the listeners, from them while informing the others would have used the names of these tellers of the aḥādīth they received during the company of the Holy Prophet and those who received these traditions while confident of the veracity of their informers nevertheless asked whether it had been transmitted from the Holy Prophet himself. 37

After the departure of the Prophet, the first caliph, abū Bakr, maintained a certain strictness regarding the matter. Hakim al- Nishāpūrī is reported to have said, “Abū Bakr was first among those who safeguarded the Prophet against the falsehood”. His caution, when it came to accepting the traditions, was followed by other caliphs and the succeeding generations. They seem to have based their criticism of traditions on the principles of the Quran and the sunnsh of the Prophet, thus criticising and evaluating the transmitters with a noble purpose and without fear and favour. 38

These are the methods which are so natural and human that were used even in the pre Islamic eras also. 39

It is also natural that one of them who had gained knowledge at second hand, while reporting the incident to a third man, might have disclosed his sources of information and might have given the full account of the incident.

5.4.1. Different Opinions of Early Traditionist’s Regarding the Beginning of Isnād System in ḤadIth Literature.

It is very difficult tofix and determine one date for regular & technical beginning of isnād in hadith literature because the early traditionists also differ regarding this issue. Yet a keen analysis of all the differing opinions of the early traditionists can indicate the decade during which this system gained more importance in literature. There are two types of the reports that suggest the early beginning of isnād in hadith literature.

205

5.4.2. Those Which Point Out the Pioneer Personalities who or in Who’s Age the Usage of Isnād Started First.

Here are the reports which provide the basis to determine the beginning of isnād.

(A). A report says:

40 " " إمنا ُسئل عن اْلسناد أَيم املختار “No boubtInquiries about isnād started during the period of Mukhtār.”

(B) An other report reads:

"كان الشعبى اول من فت شّ االسناد "41

Al-Sha‘bī was the first to scrutinize isnād.

" ابن سريين أول من انتقد الرجال وفتش عن اْلسناد "42

“Ibn Sīrīn was the first who criticized the narrators and examined isnād critically.”

(D) Zuhrī is also reported to have given importance to isnād:

كان الزهرى اول من اسند الرجال 43

Al Zuhrī was the first to concentrate upon the chain of transmitters.

5.4.3. The Reports that Suggest the Time Period for the Beginning of Isnād. Beinning of isnād with the fixation of circumstances in which the fabrication in ḥadīth started that increased the need of using the isnād in the transmission of traditions. Sufyān Al- Thaūrī (d.163/779) reports about the reason why and when the use of isnād started in hadith literature. He says:

لما استعمل الرواة الكذب استعملنا لهم التاريخ 44

“When the transmitters started lying, We in reply checked (their reports) by applying the historical method.

206

In this statement Al-Thaūrī is indicating to the rule by which it was confirmed whether the contact between the transmitter and receiver could be possible or proven by history. The traditionists in general, maintain the conclusion that the use of isnād in ḥadīth literature started just after the murder of the third righteous Caliph ‘Uthmān b. ‘Affān.45

In a report Ibn Sīrīn (d.110/728) is quoted to have said:

لم يكونوا يسئلون عن االسناد فلما وقعت الفتنة قال سمعوالنا رجالكم فينظر الى اهل السنة فيوخذ حديثهم و ينظر الى اهل البدع ال يوخذ حد يثهم. 46

“They did not ask about the isnād, but when civil war-Fitnah-broke they said, name to us your men; those who belong to Ahl al-Sunnah, their traditions were accepted and those who were innovators their traditions were neglected”

Muslims generally maintain that the trend of demanding and using isnād in the transmission of aḥādīth started after the death of Uthman, the third Caliph. Detailed discussion on Ibn Sīrīn’s this statement will come later in reply to the objections of orientalists.

5.4.4. Beginning of Isnād and the Orientalists.

Differences of opinions among the orientalists about the start of isnād in hadith literature have occured just like the differences among Muslims.

In the view of Caetani, ‘Urwah (d.94), the earlist technical collector of aḥādīth, according to Ṭabarī, used no Isnād and authority except Qur’ān.

He writes that during the caliphate of Abd al-Malik (c-70-80), the trend to quote isnāds was not customary. According to him, isnād system was regularized in the time between ‘Urwah and Ibn Isḥāq (d.151). He says that most of the traditions having isnads belong to the last part of the second century and perhaps also by those belonging to the third.47

The quotations from the writing of ‘Urwah to ‘Abd al-Mālik are preserved not only in the book of Ṭabarī but in many classical collections of hadith as well.48 which are earlier than Ṭabarī. In one of the

207

quotations, through the same isnād which is used by Ṭabarī, we find ‘Urwah quoting his authority ‘Ᾱisha in his sanad.49

Horvitz, in his article,“Alter und ursprung dos Isnād” answers all such statements and disagrees with these who deny that ‘Urwah knew the isnād’. He points out that they have not seen all his isnāds. He says that they referred only to what he wrote to the caliph ‘Abdal-Mālik, and argues that there is a difference between what one writes when asked questions and what he does within learned circles. His conclusion is that the first entry of the isnād into the literature of tradition was in the last third of the first century. 50

A Scottish scholar J. Robson, who is considered a learned figure in this regard among orientalists, says:

“It is during the middle years of the first century of Islam that one would first expect anything like an isnād. By then many of the companions were dead, and people who had not seen the Prophet would be telling stories about him. It might therefore naturally occur to some to ask these men for their authority. The growth of a hard and fast system must have been very gradual. We know that Ibn Isḥāq, in the first half of the second century, could give much of his information without an isnād, and much of the remainder without a perfect one. His predecessors would almost certainly be even less particular than he in documenting their information. But we are not justified in assuming that the isnād is a development of Zuhrī’s period and was unknown to ‘Urwah. While the developed system had a slow growth, some element of isnād would be present from as early a period as people could demand it.”51

5.4.4.1. Schacht and the Isnād System.

According to Schacht’s opinion, isnāds are the most arbitrary genre of tradition literature. He says that some groups of later generations invented new ideas of their own and traced them back to the earlier authorities up to the companions and the Holy Prophet. 52

Prof. Robson criticizes Schacht’s theory about isnād in this way. “The criticism leveled at the isnāds is very thoroughgoing, and some strong arguments are brought forward to suggest that the use of isnāds is a late development; but one hesitates to accept it to the full extent. No doubt many isnāds were invented. Indeed, it cannot have been

208 otherwise, for there are many traditions provided with complete isnāds which cannot genuinely go back to the Prophet. But this does not justify one in saying all isnāds are fictitiously traced to the Prophet. Schacht is dealing primarily with legal tradition, a sphere where his argument may apply more closely than elsewhere, as changing conditions and the development of legal thought must have demanded new regulations; but one wonders whether the argument is not too sweeping.”53

Moreover, he says: “even if we allow the force of Schacht’s argument regarding the invention and documentation of legal traditions it is difficult to believe that all the material regarding the life of the Prophet is on the same level. Schacht is convinced that we have no reliable information which has been handed down from eye-witnesses by regular channels. He speaks with approval of Goldzihr’s skepticism on the subject, and suggests that the idea of a genuine core of tradition is unjustifiable. Dr. Watt has suggested that “This solid core is probably more extensive than is usually realized”, and says that “it is the distinctive feature of the historical element in the traditions about Muhammad as contrasted, for example, with the legal element”. With this I am inclined to agree, although it is difficult to prove. The personality of the Prophet made such an impression on his followers that we cannot believe that the picture of him given in Tradition is purely a late development. But while we may believe theoretically that tradition does contain a genuine core, do the Isnāds attached to the traditions provide us with the means of recognizing what is genuine? To support any such view we would need more proofs than we possess that they really represent a connected chain of transmission. That is not to say, however, that the whole system is a forgery of later times. It must go back to something, and no doubt it includes elements which are genuine, although it is difficult to disentangle them.”54

Schacht comments on the saying of Ibn Sīrīn and challenges its historical authenticity in these words. “It is stated on the authority of the successor Ibn Sīrīn that the demand for and the interest in isnāds started from the civil war (fitna), when people could not longer be presumed to be reliable without scrutiny; we shall see later that the civil war which began with the killing of the Umaiyad Caliph Walīd b. Yazīd (A.H. 126) towards the end of the Umaiyad dynasty, was a conventional date for the end of the good old time during which the sunna of the Prophet was still prevailing; as the usual date for the death of Ibn Sīrīn is

209

A.H. 110, we must conclude that the attribution of this statement to him is spurious. In any case, there is no reason to suppose that the regular practice of using isnāds is older that the beginning of the second century A.H.”55

His arguments have their base in his own assumtions in his arbitrary explanation of the term ‘Fitna’ but the assassination date of walīd has never been considered as the ending days of the ‘good old time’ this title is always given to the time of first four caliphs.

On the other hand there were many other fitnas before this incident even much more effective on the conditions of Muslim political and religious history.

i. Civil war fought by Ibn Zubair and Abd Al-Mālik b Marwan against each other about 70 A.H. further more, the biggest and most effective war in the civil war fought by Ali and Amīr Mu‘āwia in 36 after hijrah. History of the Muslim world proves that this war left its everlasting affects upon the political and religious life of the Muslims. As all of the professional historians of Islamic history hold that this war distributed the Muslim community into three major sects. i- Ahl-e-Sunnat ii- Shī‘a iii- Khawārij After this greatest event Muslim Ummah could never be as united as was before the assassination of ‘Uthmān, the third righteous caliph.

Prof. Robson interprets Ibn Sīrīn’s word ‘Fitna’ in the sense of the fitna of Ibn Al-Zubair, considering the birth date of Ibn Sīrīn, as well as the occurrence of the word Fitna’ in the text of Muwattā of Mālik which refers to this word.56

Further Professor Robson criticizes Schacht’s two reasons because of which he rejects the isnād of Malik from Nafi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar of the report in which Malik talks about Ibn ‘Umar who was wishing to go to Macca during the Fitna. So of which the age of Fitna is fixed when Ibn Al Zubayr became a caliph. But Schacht questions the authenticity of the Isnād of this report because of two reasons. Prof. Robson speaks about his assumption thus. “Something may be said

210 about the Isnād Malik from Nafi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar, which is highly regarded by Muslim traditionists, but which Schacht distrusts on two grounds. He says that Mālik being too young to have heard Nafi‘ directly, can at best only have received a book containing traditions transmitted by Nafi’ which he transmitted as if he had actually heard them. The date of Malik’s birth is not definitely known, but Ibn al- Qaisāranī says categorically that he was born in 93. If that were so, he would have been 24 by the time of the death of Nafi‘. Even supposing he was born a few years later, he would still have been old enough to have heard tradition from NafI‘. There is therefore no occasion to suggest that he could have received his traditions only in written from. The isnād in the Muwattā does not normally indicate how information was received, as ‘an is commonly used to indicate the source, but on occasion Malik indicates that he got information by word of mouth from Nafi‘. Are we to hold that this is a piece of pretence? I prefer to believe that such passages indicate that Malik really did meet and heard from Nafi‘ .” 57

He does not accept Schacht’s second reason because of which he suspects the Isnād Mālik-Nafi‘-Ibn ‘Umar. He speaks about this: “The second reason why Schacht suspects this isnād is because it is a family one, Nafi‘ being a client of Ibn ‘Umar. When traditions are transmitted within a family, they are accepted as very reliable, but Schacht argues that this is a device to spread spurious traditions and gives examples to prove it. But if, as is evidently true, family isnāds were used to support spurious traditions, is one justified in saying that every family isnād is spurious? Was the family isnād invented to supply apparent evidence for spurious traditions, or did genuine family isnāds exist which later served as models? It seems better to recognize that they are a genuine feature of the documentation, but to realize that people often copied this type of isnād to support spurious traditions. Therefore, while holding that family isnāds do genuinely exist, one will not take them all at face value.” 58

According to Mustafā A‘zamī’s view point, the word ‘fitna’ used by Ibn Sīrīn should be taken as spoken for the civil war between Ali, and Mu‘āwia. Following are the reasons for this assumption.

(A) Professor Robson has pointed out that at the middle of the first century, when many of the companions were dead and people who had not seen the Prophet would be telling the stories about the

211

Prophet, someone would naturally ask them to name the authority. If we accept Robson’s statement about the status of the Prophet, Which is described quite unreasonably, this is possibly what might have occurred. Yet before this stage there were ups and downs in political and religious life of the Muslims. Most likely the first fabrication in hadith existed in political background, crediting and discrediting the parties and personalities concerned. Therefore, it looks as if the spurious traditions began to originate for political purposes about the period of the war between ‘Alī and Mu‘āwia and continued in the coming time as a counter attack on the ummayyads throughout the Abbasid Caliphate. Then the traditionists found it necessary from that time onwards to be more cautious in selecting their authorities.

(B) The second reason for this assumption is the statement of Ibn Sīrīn itself. There is no reason whatsoever to discredit or challenge its authenticity. Ibn Sīrīn’s wording suggests that he relates a practice earlier than his own period. He uses the words “They did not ask” They said ‘Name to us your men’, “were accepted”, etc. He does not use the first person of the personal pronoun in a period when its usage was common. So it seems that he points to a practice in very early days. Furthermore, he says ‘they did not ask’, which implies that the practice of isnad was in existence, Ibn Sīrīn’s saying gives the impression that the isnād was used even before the Fitnah, but the narrators were not so perfect in applying it. Sometimes they employed it and at others neglected it. After the civil war they became more cautious and began to inquire about the sources of information and scrutinized them. At the end of the first century the science of the isnād was fully developed. Shu‘bah used to watch the lips of Qatādah, in the lecture, to discriminate between his first and second hand information. There are ample references asking and inquiring about the isnād in the first century of the Hijrah.

212

References Chapter: V

1 Robson, The Isnād in Muslim Tradition, Glasgow University Oriental Society Transactions, vol. xv, 1955, P. 17.

2 Ṣiddīqī, M. Z. , Ḥadīth literature, (Suhail Academy Lahore, 2001), p.77.

3 Horovitz, Alter and Ursprung des Isnād, Der Islam, (n. d. 1917), II/47.

4 Robson, Ibn Isḥāq’s use of Isnād, (Bulletin of John Rylonds Library Manchester, 1956), 38/449-465.

5 Margoliouth, D. S. , Lectures on Arabic History, (Calcutta, 1930), p. 20.

6 Ibn-Ḥajar, Al-Isābah, (Introduction by Sprenger) (Bishop’s College Press, Calcutta, 1956), p.73

7 Ḥadīth Literature, p. 77-78.

8 Ibid. , p.78.

9 Qur’ān , 49:6.

10 Qur’ān, 4:83.

11 At-Ṭiyalisī, Abū Dawūd, wa mā Rawat ḤafṢa bint ‘Umar ‘Ani- Nabī, Dār Hijr, (Egypt, first Edition, 4 vols. , 1419/1914), 3/164.

12 Bukhārī, Lam yakun an-Nabī.

13 Ibid. , Ikfā’ fi ad-din.

14 Qur’ān, 65:2.

15 Bukhārī, Ḥijjat ul-widā’.

16 Muslim, wujūb ur-riwayat ‘ani-thiqāt wa tark.

17 Al-Ḥākīm, Muḥammad b Abdullah al-Nishapūrī,(d.405 a.h.), al- Mudkhal fī‘ilm al-Ḥadīth, ed. J. Robson, (London, 1953), p. 46.

18 Manhaj al-Naqd fi ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth, 1/70.

19 Sharḥ al-Sunnah al-Baghavī, 12/280.

213

20 Tadvīn as-Sunnah wa Manzilatuha, p.39.

21 Ḥuffāẓ, 1/3.

22 Muslim, al-isnād min al-dīn.

23 Ibid.

24 Al-Ḥākīm, Muḥammad b Abdullah al-Nishapūrī, (d.405 a.h.),

Ma‘rifah ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth, ed. Mu’azzam Ḥussayn, (Cairo, 1980).

25 Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, Introduction, Al-isnād min al-dīn, 1/44.

26 Tirmidhī, abwāb al-‘Ilal.

27 Al-Ḥakīm, Ma‘rifah ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth, p.6.

28 Subkī, Tabaqāt al-Shāfi‘a al-Kubra, n. d. , I/167.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Ḥakīm, Madkhal fī‘Ilm al-Ḥadīth, ed. J Robson, (London, 1953), p. 9.

32 Subkī, Tabaqāt al-Shāfi‘a al-kubra, I/167.

33 Zeitschrift Der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft

(ZDMG), X 1956 p.1.

34 Nicholson, Reynold. A. , A Literary History of the Arabs, (Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, 1994), p.145.

35 Ibn Ishaq’s vol. 38, pp. 449-465.

36 Ibn-Ḥajar, Al-Isābah (Introduction by Sprenger) Bishop’s College Press, Calcutta, 1856, p. 73

37 Bukhārī, ‘Ilm.

38 Sharḥ, ‘Ilal al-Tirmidhī, pp. 75-76, Cf. Jamila Shaukat, Studies in Hadith, (Faculty of Islamic & Oriental Learning, University of the Punjab, 2000), p.74.

214

39 NāṢir ad-Dīn, Asad, Masādir al-Shi‘r al-Jāhilī, 2nd ed. (Dār al- ma‘arif, Cairo, 1962), pp. 255-267.

39 Ibid.

40 Al-‘Umarī, Akram b. Ḍia, Buḥūth fī Tārīkh al-Sunnah al- Mushrifa, (Basāṭ, Beiruit, 1985), p.48.

41 Al-Rāmahurmuzī, Ajjāj al-Khatīb, al-Muhaddith al-FāṢil bayn al- Rāwī wa al-Wa‘ī, (Beirut, 1971), p. 208.

42 Ibn Rajab, ‘Abdul Rahman b. Aḥmad,Sharḥ, ‘Ilal, al-Tirmidhī, Maktaba al-Mannār, Al-Zarkā’ , (Jordan, first edition, 1407/1987), p.355.

43 Ibn abi Ḥātim al-Rāzī, Taqdimah al-Ma‘rifah li Kitāb al-Jarḥ wa al- Ta‘dīl, (Hyderabad, 1952), p. 20.

44 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī, Al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah, ( Madina, n.d.), p.119.

45 Ajjāj, pp. 220, 221.

46 Muslim, Muslim, al-isnād min al-dīn.

47 Isnād vol. xv, p.18.

48 Ibn Ḥanbal, Ahmad b. Muhammad, Musnad, 6 vols. (Cairo, 1313), 4/328-331.

49 Ibid. , vol.vi, p. 212.

50 Der Islam, 1918, vol. viii, pp.39-47.

51 Isnād vol. xv, pp.15-26.

52 Origins, p.163.

53 Isnād vol. xv , p.20.

54 Ibid. , vol. xv, 1955, p.20-21.

55 Origins, p. 36-37.

56 Isnād, vol. xv, p. 22.

57 Ibid. , vol. xv, p. 22-23.

215

58 Ibid. , p.23.

Conclusion

Orientalism, in its research of the various aspects of Islamic teachings, has come down to the present stage after a lot of changes in its mode, attitude and research methodology. When a common reader of its history has a bird's eye view throughout the history of its behaviors towards Islam, he cannot help himself stop ridiculing it because its early and later modes of talking and thinking about Islam show a great difference between

216 both of them. For example, before and during the crusades, they thought of Muhammad as if He were a Christian monk in his early life and then ran away in agitation against the Christians’ decision of not making him their Chief Bishop. The stories of the bull and of the pigeon are also an interesting source for the modern orientalists to laugh at the early intellectual history of orientalism. Such stories and assumtions were the products of the time when there was no trend to study Islam through the basic sources of itsintellectual history. On the contrary, they used to consult and rely upon the works of their predecessors. This type of literature was enriched with biase and personal spaculations and assumptions of the Western individuals.

Then a new era of logical reasoning and historical investigation started with the revolutionary recommendations of Roger Bacon, an innovative figure in the Intellectual history of Europe. He highlighted the importence of preaching for the spread of Christianity. He also encouraged the Christians to refute Islamic teachings by approaching them with the learning of Arabic and Eastern lanaguages. He also argued that wars, prejudice and hatred were useless for the refutation of Islam. In this era all of such childish and spaculativeallegations were taken into critical analysis and were rejectedeven by the orientalists with a sense of apology for Muhammad, Qur’ā and Islam.

By the entry of Goldziher and his contemporary, C. Snouck Hurgrunje, the orientalism aimed at the authority, historical authenticity and the importance of hadith in Islam. As they adopted this discipline to play with, they found it very fascinating and a bit soft one to aim their arrows at it. Before this, they were busy in testing their aims in the fields of Sirah and the Holy Quran. But both of them were more difficult to deal with than this new one. Personality of the Holy Prophet and the Holy Quran were the authorities unanimasly edmitted by the whole of Muslim sects. No where was a single Muslim who questioned the Holiness of the Prophet of the authority of the Holy Quran. The Divine promise and claimed of the preservation and defence of the Holy Quran was another factor of the failure of Orientalism. Therefore they could not find a single weak point with the Islamic teachings against Quran. It was the discipline of authority and the historical authenticity of hadith and its literature that unfortunately had already been facing a lot of questions, doubts and objections from within the Muslim circles. So the Orientalists, with their sudden but fortunate entrance into hadith literature, found a bulk of weak points and so called proofs against the authority and authenticity of hadith. They raised the following irreasonable objections about the hadith literature. These are some of those allegations:

• Sunnah denotes the acts of pre-Muhammadan community rather than the practice of the Holy Prophet. • Islamic Law did not exist during the greater part of the first century.

217

• The Holy Prophet’s authority was not legal but religious and political. • Tradition from the Holy Prophet cannot be considered genuine or authentic. • The origin of Isnād system has been borrowed from pre Islamic Arabs and other non-Muslims. • Isnad system was used for the authentication of hadith because Isnad have been invented by the traditionists to project their own statements into the mouth of the Holy Prophet.

This distortion and several mistakes done by the orientalists were because of two main reasons.

I. Technically the discipline of hadith studies was more difficult, for the orienalists, than the other two subjects to understand. Some of the mistakes mentioned above are the result of the following limitations of orientalists in their works.

• Most of the orientalists are no more than lay men in their knowledge of Arabic language. They do not bother themselves to learn Arabic language for the better perception of the Islamic literature with its true spirit. On the contrary, they mostly keep themselves contented on the mere study of Western Islamic literature or to some extent use the translation of the focused text.

• As technically hadith was a bit more difficult field for the orientalists to deal with. Therefore, to meet this difficulty, they, very first time in their history, happened to face the difficulty of approaching and reading the Muslim sources of its history. They obviously needed the knowledge of Arabic language for the proper understanding of the terms used in hadith methodology (usul al-hadith), but unfortunately most of the orientalists did not have it. It was one of the prominent reasons of their committing several even childish mistakes in understanding the whole of hadith literature.

• Teachings of Islam are a vast subject to deal with. True understanding of its spirit is necessary before speaking about any dimention or discipline of its teachings. It may cause a grass mistake to ignore this collective spirit of the overall teachings of Islam while writing about a single subject. It is also one of the deficiencies in the scholarship of the orientalists that most of them study one or two disciplines of Islamic teachings. Sometimes this limited type of expertise results in their ignorance of other disciplines of Islamic literature. For example if someone of the orientalists is highly expert in the genre of sīrah or tafsīr literature where he observes the Muslim historians or exegetical experts

218

express their opinions about some pre-historical eventverient to one another. He also observes them disapproving one another’s opinions. Here he approves some of these and disapproves others openly. When the Sirah or Tafsir specialist orientalists comes across the ḥadīth literature, he deals all of the traditions, either weakor sound, in the same way as he used to deal with the historical reports occurred in the sirah or exegetical literature. But here the case is totally different because of the basic distinction between the basic sources of these disciplines. Unfortunatly, In sīrah and tafsīr literature, the Israilite reports and the historical statements of all, Muslim or non-Muslim historians, have been included without proper scrutiny. No strict rules like those of the application of isnads and the scrutiny of the narrators could be applied in these disciplines. On the other hand, such unscrutinized Israilite reports and the historical statements could not have their way into hadith literature. But actually each of the report or statement has been included in hadith literature after being scrutinized through the following standards:

i. Content Criticism:

Standards for the criticism of the text of ḥadīth are more strict than those applied in sīrah and ṭafsīr literature. A sufficient detail of these rules and standards can be seen in fourth chapter of this work. So, because of his ignorance from the different criteria for the acceptance or the rejection the reports, the sīrah or exegesis specialist orientalist may commit mistakes if he uses the same standards of sīrah and tafsīr literature in ḥadith literature.

ii. Isnād System: Application of Isnād system includes the following steps: 3.1 Each report is accepted after the confirmation that all of the narrators are wellknown.Surity or at least Possibility of meeting between each reporter and receiver is considered compulsory. 3.2 Ilm al-jarh wa ‘ta‘dīl is applied on the character of each narrator to confirm that he possesses sound character and is also free of any defect in his memory. If the reporter possesses these qualities, he is named ‘thiqa’ and is considered weak and unreliable if he does not meat the requirements.

219

• By faith, Western scholars belong to the Christianity or Judaism not to Islam, therefore, it is quite natural that they might be biased, prejudiced or partial while speaking about Islam as has also been pointed out by the orientalists in their works.

Due to these reasons,most of the works of orientalists on Islam are not more than mere reprints or reproductions of the works of their predecessors. Some of the questions raised by the orientalists on the authority, authenticity and the historicity of hadith, replied well by the reasonable and learned orientalists, clearly confirm these shortcomings of the orientalists in the field of hadith literature.

Muslim literature In reply to orientalism is not less than a good contribution for the defence of Islamic literature. But it shoud never be considered sufficient because it is one side of this case. On the other hand a bitter reality is waiting our reply. That is series of some burning question, viberating in my mind, which are

• Do these Muslim replies to orientalism reach upto the public of the West as early as the literature of the orientalists?

The answer to this question is quite clear that at first the Muslim answers to orientalists are mostly written years after the emergence of the orientalists' allegations. Secondly, mostly these replies can never be able to get their way into the Western public.

• The next question arises that do we have any source or forum to represent Islam in the Western public through which we may present the real image of Islam in the West ?

The simple and absolute reply of this question is that we do not have any type of such approach to the Western world. On the other hand, the orientalists are considered the direct representatives of Islam over there. Because whenever someone needs to study Islam and its teachings, he approaches the literature of the orientalists easily available to them.

220

Recommendations

• Muslim scholars should have a regular analysis of the Western writers on Islam especially on hadith literature.

• Muslim scholars, especially the heads of the departments of Islamic studies, should highlight the intensity of the Western allegations on Islam and its teachings, especially the ḥadīth literature and the importance of the representing Islam in the West. They should encourage their students and followers to do more and more research to respond the orientalism by representing the true and spotless spirit of Islam.

• During the study of the Muslim literature in reply to the Western allegations on hadith and other aspects of Islamic teaching, it has been observed that Muslim World is not self-empowered in its scholarship in English language. Therefore the production of remarkable works in reply to the orientalists to represent Islam in the Western public should be ensured. For which it seems necessary;

• To start a sufficient number of institutes for the study of hadith in the Universities of Eastern countries as well as in the Western society. The combination of Arabic and English languages must be the main focus of these institutes. So that each scholar of these institutes may be enriched with the deep knowledge of Islamic literature and with the keen approach to the Western public through his expertise of applied English language.

• Material available on the subject of ḥadīth and orientalism in the libraries of Pakistani universities is not sufficient. A big amount of money for the availability of such material in Arabic and English languages should be sanctioned.

221

• Rulers of the Muslim countries should generously sanction the sufficient amounts for the establishment of such institutes.

Indexes ‘A’ (Names)

‘Abd al-Malik, 65

‘Abdullah b. Abu Mulaikah, 186

‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr, 193

‘Abdu-llah b. Ibad, 65, 84

Abū Bakr, 64, 121, 122, 140, 185, 191, 219

Abū Darada, 188

Abū Dhar, 188

Abū Hanifa, 76, 82

Abū Hurairah, 41, 45, 57, 114, 126, 153, 182

Abū Musa Asha‘rī, 134, 135, 220

Abū Said Khudrī, 134, 135, 219, 220

Abū Shah, 132

Abū Ṭālib, 153

Abū Yūsuf, 82

Ahmad b. Ḥanbal, 140

Alfred Guillaume, 41, 122, 151, 173

‘Ali, 66, 68, 166, 179, 184

Al-kindi, 28

222

Alois Sprenger, 27

Amina, 43

Anas b. Mālik, 115, 130, 137

Arbery, 23

A.Von. Kremer, 29

Bosworth Smith, 26

Christian, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 49, 50

Dozi, 29

D.S. Margoliouth, 28, 39, 65, 86

Earnest Renan, 27

Edison, 26

Edward Pococke, 25, 42, 43, 44

Edward Said, 7, 24

Edward William Lane, 24

Farazdaq, 60

Fazl ur Rahman, 62, 103

George, 23

G.H.A. Juynboll, 39

Gibbon, 12, 26, 44

Godfrey Higgins, 12, 30

Ḥalīma, 42, 43, 44

Hammam b Munabbih, 167

H. A. R. Gibb. , 28, 90, 161

Harald Motzki, 40

H.de Boulainvilliers, 26

223

Henry Pirenne, 11

Henry Stubbe, 22,151

Hishāmī, 42

Horovitz, 212, 213

Humphrey Prideaux, 26

Husain, 67, 70

Ibn ‘Abbās, 188

Ibn al-Muqaffa, 73, 74, 105

Ibn Isḥāq, 144, 146, 227

Ibn Qayyim, 147, 178, 190, 195, 198, 202

Ibn ‘Umar, 45, 77, 81, 177, 187, 231

Ibn Zubair, 230

Ibrāhīm b. al-Walīd, 37

Ignaz Goldziher, 28, 31, 51

J. Robson, 213, 223, 227, 230

Jean, 12, 20

Jews, 8, 30, 33, 127, 145, 149, 151

John Davenport, 24, 30, 44

John Wycliffe, 20

Joseph Schacht, 39, 41, 48, 64, 65, 79, 81, 84, 88, 103, 123, 160, 228, 230

Leone Catani, 29

Luther, 20

Maḥmūd Aḥmad Ghāzī, 46

Mahmood Khan Shairani, 23

224

Mālik, b. Anas, 103, 122, 138

Maryam Jamila, 48

Maryam al-Marwazī, 146

Montgomery Watt, 16, 30, 50

M. Mustafa A‘zamī, 48, 103, 167

M. Mustafa Sibai, 38, 47, 48, 103

Muhammad b. Abi bakr b. Muhammad b. Amr b. Hazm, 79

Muḥammad Ḥamīdullah, 46

Muhammad Hussain Haykal, 202

Musailimah, 150

Mutarrif, 67, 70

Nabia Abbott, 40

Nicholas, 20

Noldeke, 34

Peter Alfansi, 14, 20, 158

Philip K. Hitti, 28, 84, 86, 91

Ray Mund Lull, 14, 19

Roger Bacon, 13, 18, 237

Shāfi‘ī, 73, 82, 83, 84, 90, 146, 164, 177, 188

Shakespeare, 17, 21

Shiblī Naumanī, 46

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, 42, 43, 44, 46, 112

Snouck Hurgronge, 34

Sohaib Hassan Abdul Ghaffar, 49, 168

225

Southern, 12, 15, 18, 19, 20

Stanley Lane-Poole, 27

Sulaiman b Mehran al-A‘mash, 144

Suwaid, 67, 70

Talha, 66, 70

Thomas Carlyle, 30, 154

‘Umara, 70

‘Umar b Al-khattāb, 9, 45, 59, 64, 83, 123, 186, 188, 217, 231

Umayyad, 37, 40, 65

Urwah, 81, 193, 227, 228

‘Utba, 59

Uthman, 69, 72, 226

Washington Irving, 27

William Bedwell, 23

William Jones, 25

William Muir, 27, 42, 43, 46, 121, 140, 151, 153

William of Malmasbury, 14

Yazid b. Abu Zinād, 193

Zafar Ali Qureshi, 47

Zubayr Sidīquī, 49, 215

Zuhrī, 47, 121, 123, 129, 222, 225, 228

226

Index ‘B’ (Places) Abū Dhabī, 248 Africa, 9, 11 America, 29, 33, 34 Antioch, 145 Arab, 63, 88, 110, 112, 145, 150, 155, 180 Asqalan, 145 Bangal, 25 Basra, 145 Beirut, 105, 108, 165, 166, 171, 235, 244, 247, 249 Britain, 24 Byzantine, 16 Calcutta, 233, 246, 247 Cambridge, 22 Cairo, 32, 103, 164, 167, 201, 203, 234, 243, 246, 248, 249 Chicago, 40 Clark Edimburgh, 51, 250 Damascus, 32, 165,167, 244, 246, 247 Edinburgh, 22 Egypt, 9, 11, 112, 166, 233 Europe, 9, 11, 14, 16, 31, 38, 212, 237 France, 12, 22, 24, 25, 46, 158 Germany, 24, 31 Glasgow, 22 Greeks, 12, 16, 23, 31, 32, 44, 113, 213 Holland, 31, 32 Hungry, 31, 32, 33, 136 Hyderabad, 103, 105, 164, 166, 167, 201, 235, 244 ‘Ibadan, 145 India, 25, 215 ‘Iraq, 143, 144, 145 Italy, 19 Jeddah, 145 Jerosalem, 37, 158 Jordan, 145, 235 Kānpūr, 247 Khurasan, 145

227

Lahore, 51, 53, 107, 165, 201, 233, 247, 248 Leiden, 31, 32, 104, 105 London, 22, 26, 72 Madina, 37, 75, 79, 114, 141, 164, 181, 184, 186, 203, 235, 244, 246 Makkah, 132 Mesri, 112 Nasibin, 145 Netherland, 40 New Delhi, 234, 248, 250 New Jersey, 51, 245 New York, 50, 170, 244, 245, 248 Oxford, 7, 17, 43, 50, 103, 107,244 Paris, 22 Portugal, 24, 30, 78, 148 Qizwin, 145 Riyaḍh, 248 Saint Anrews, 22 Sicily, 16 Spain, 9, 11, 16, 24 Room, 9, 10, 11, 22, 192, 205 Russia, 24 Tabariya, 145 Uman, 145 Viyana, 25

Index ‘C’ (Qur’ānic Verses)

Sūrah: Verse Page

228

Qur’ān, 2:33, 35…………………………………………………………………………………94

Qur’ān, 2:89……………………………………………………………………………………..149

Qur’ān, 2:97……………………………………………………………………………………..94

Qur’ān, 3:3, 50, 64……………………………………………………………………………..156

Qur’ān, 3:31………………………………………………………………………………………99

Qur’ān, 4:47……………………………………………………………………………………..157

Qur’ān, 4:59, 64…………………………………………………………………………………98

Qur’ān, 4:65, 80…………………………………………………………………………………99

Qur’ān, 4:83……………………………………………………………………………………..216

Qur’ān, 5:48……………………………………………………………………………………..157

Qur’ān, 6:25……………………………………………………………………………………..149

Qur’ān, 6:83……………………………………………………………………………………..95

Qur’ān, 7:22……………………………………………………………………………………..95

Qur’ān, 7:117……………………………………………………………………………………96

Qur’ān, 8:38……………………………………………………………………………………..60

Qur’ān, 11:36, 76.………………………………………………………………………………95

Qur’ān, 12:94, 95, 96………………………………………………………………………….96

Qur’ān, 17:79……………………………………………………………………………………145

Qur’ān, 20:9……………………………………………………………………………..………56

Qur’ān, 20:13……………………………………………………………………………………93

Qur’ān, 23:28……………………………………………………………………………………95

Qur’ān, 26:193………………………………………………………………………………….94

Qur’ān, 33:21……………………………………………………………………………………85

Qur’ān, 33:36…………………………………………………………………………………...100

229

Qur’ān, 33:62……………………………………………………………………………………60

Qur’ān, 33:70……………………………………………………………………………………189

Qur’ān, 35:18……………………………………………………………………………………187

Qur’ān, 39:23……………………………………………………………………..56

Qur’ān, 42:51……………………………………………………………………..92

Qur’ān, 49:6………………………………………………………………………………………216

Qur’ān, 53:3, 4...……………………………………………………………………97

Qur’ān, 59:5………………………………………………………………………...97

Qur’ān, 65:2………………………………………………………………………………………..218

Qur’ān,66:3………………………………………………………………………...56

Qur’ān, 72:23……………………………………………………………………….100

Bibliography

• The Holy Qurā’n • Abū Dāwūd, Sulaymān b al-Ash‘ath (d.275), Sunan, 2 vols., (Cairo, 1371/1952). • Abū Yūsuf, al-Radd ‘alā Siyar al-‘Aūza‘ī, edited by Al-Afghānī, (Cairo, 1357 A.H).

230

• Adīb, Muhammad Ṣālih, Lamāhat fi UṢūl al-ḥadīth, (Damascus, 1393 A.H). • Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, 6 vols., (Cairo, 1313). • Aḥmad Ḥasan,The early Development of Islamic Jurisprudence, (Islamic Research Institute, Islamabad, Pakistan, 1994). • Albānī, Nāsir al-dīn, Silsilāt al-aḥādīth al-Daīfa wa al-maudūa ‘, (Beirut, 1384 A.H). • Arabic literature to the end of the Umayyad period, Edited by A.F.L. Beeston, T.M. Johnston, R.B. Serjeant and G.R. Smith, (Cambridge University press Cambridge, 1983). • ‘Ayāḍ al-Qāḍī, al-Ilmā’ edited by Saqr, (Cairo,1970). • A‘zamī, M. M. On Schacht’s Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, (King Saud University, Riyaḍ, 1985).

Studies in early Ḥadīth literature, (Suhail Academy, Lahore,

2001).

Studies in Ḥadīth Methodology and Literature, (Islamic Teaching

Center, Indianapolis, 1977).

• Baihaqī, abū Bakr Aḥmad b al-Ḥussain al-sunan al-kubrā, 10 vols, (Hyderabad, 1344 A.H).

• Bell, Richard, The Origin of Islam in its Christian environment, (Frank cass and co. LTD. 1968). • Bravmann, M. M. , The Spiritual background of early Islam, (Leiden E.J. Brill, 1972). • Brown, A.C. Jonathan, Hadith; Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and modern world, (One World Publications, Oxford, England, 2010). • Buaben, Jabal Muhammad, Image of the Prophet Muhammad in the West, A study of Muir, Margoliouth and Watt, (The Islamic foundation, 1996). • Bucaille, Maurice, The Bible, the Quran and science, (Lahore 1979). • Bukhārī, Muḥammad b Ismā‘el, Aljām‘i al Ṣaḥiḥ, (Dār Ṭauq an- Nijāt, First edition, 9 vols,1422 A. H). • Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Translated into English by Muhammad Mohsin Khan, 9 vols. , (Madina, 1976). • Carlyle, Thomas : On Heroes, Hero Worship and the Heroic in History, (J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. New York, 1948).

231

• Coulson , N. J. A History of Islamic Law , (Lahore Law times Publications, Urdu bazar Lahore, 1993). • Daniel W. Brown, Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought, (Cambridge University Press, 1996). • Dārmī, Abdullah b. ‘Abdur Rehmān, Sunan,( Kānpūr, 1292-3) • Dermenghen, Emile, Men of Wisdom Muhammad and the Islamic Tradition, translated from the French by Jean M. Watt, (Greenwood press Publishers Westport, Connecticut, 1974). • (Al-Dhhabī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, al-Talkhīs, Printed with Mustadrak al- Hākīm, 4 Vols. , (Hyderabad, N.D). • Duncan B. Macdonald, Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory, (Darf Publishers Limited London, 1985). • Fazlur Rahmān, Islamic Methodology in History, (Central Institute of Islamic Research, Karachi, 1965). • Gibb, Islam included the encyclopedia of loving faith,N.D.). • Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and fall of Roman Empire, (Every man’s library, New York, 1969). • Goitein, S. D. , Studies in Islamic History and Institutions, (Leiden, 1965). • Goldzihr, Ignaz, Introduction to Islamic Theology and law, (Princeton University press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1938). Muslim Studies, Volume 1 (George Allen & Unwin Limited, London, 1967). Muslim Studies, Volume 2 (George Allen & Unwin Limited, London, 1971). • Guillaume, Alfred, The Traditions of Islam, (Universal Books Zulqarnain Chambers, Ganpat road, Lahore, 1977). • Hallaq, Weal B. The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law, (Cambridge University Press, 2005). • Al-Haishamī, ‘Alī b. Abī bakar, Majma al-Zawāed wa Manba’ al-Fawāid, (Dār al-Fikr Beirut, 10 vols, 1994). al-MaqṢad al-‘Ulā fī Zawāid Abī Y‘alā al-MūṢlī, 4 vols. , Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmia, (Beirut, Labanān, 1975). • Al-Ḥākim an-Nisabūrī, Muhammad b. ‘ Abdullah, al- Mustadrak, 4 vols. (Hyderabad, 1922).

Marifah ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth, ed. Mua‘ẓam Hussayn, (Cairo, 1980).

al-Madkhal fi ‘ilm al-Ḥadīth, ed. J. Robson, (London, 1953). An introduction to the Science of Tradition being Al-madkhal ‘ila marifat al-Iklil, Introduction, Translation, and Notes by James Robson, 1953).

232

• Al-Ḥalabī, Nūrud Dīn Muḥammad, Manhaj al-Naqd fi ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth, (Dār al- Fikr, Damascus, Syria, 1418/1997). • Ḥammām b Munabbih, Ṣaḥīfaḥ, ed. by Muḥammad Ḥamidullah, 1st ed. (Damascus, 1372/1953). • Haykal, Hussain, Muhammad, The life of Muhammad,

(North America Trust Publications, 1976).

• Herbert Berg, The development of Exegesis in Early Islam, (Curzon, 2000). • Hitti, Philip, K., Islam a way of life, (Oxford University Press, 1971). • Horovitz, Alter and Ursprung des Isnad, (Der Islam, 1917). • Hourani, Albert, Islam in European Thought, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991). • Al-Hudhalien, dīwān, 2vols. , (Cairo, 1385 A.H). • Humphrey Prideaux, the True Nature of the Imposture Fully Displayed in the Life of Mahomet, 8th ed, (1999). • Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Yūsuf b. Abdullah, Jāmi‘ Bayān al-‘Ilm, (Beirut, 1963). • Ibn Abi al-Hadīd, AbūḤāmid b. Hibat Allah, Sharh, Nahj al-Blāgha, dar al- Kutub al-Arabiya al-Kubra, (Cairo, 1378/1959). • Ibn abīḤātim, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Rāzī, Taqdimah al-Ma’rifah li Kitāb al-Jarh wa al-Tadīl, (Hyderabad, 1952). • Ibn Abi Shaeba, Abu Bakr, Musaannaf,( Maktabat ul Rushd, Riyadh, 1409 A. H). • Ibn Asākir, ‘Alī b al-Ḥasan, al-Tarīkh al-Kabīr, 7 vols. , First five vols.ed. by ‘Abd al- Qadīr Badrān. 6th and 7th ed. By Aḥmad ’baid,( Damascus, 1911-1931). • Ibn al-Athīr, Ali b. Muḥammad, Usd al-Ghābah, 5 vols. (Cairo, 1285-7). • Ibn Ḥajar, Aḥmad b. ‘Aīi, Fatḥ al-Bārī Sharh Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, (al-Halabi Press, 1959). Al-Isābah fī Tamyīz al-Ṣaḥabah, (Introduction by Sprenger),(Bishop’s college press, Calcutta, 1856). Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, 12 vols. , (Hyderabad, 1325-7 A.H). • Ibn Ḥazm, ‘Aḥmad, al-Ihkām fī UṢūl al-Aḥkām, (Cairo, 1345-47). • Ibn Irāq, ‘Alī b Muḥammad, Tanzīh al-Shariya al-marfu’a, an al-Akhbar al- Shaniya al-Maudūa‘ , (Cairo, 1378). • Ibn al-Jaūzī, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. ‘Alī al-Mauḍū‘āt al-Kubrā, (Maktaba Salafia Madina, 1386/1966). • Ibn Kathīr, Isma‘īl b. ‘Umar, Albidāya wa al Nihāya, 14 vols, Ist edition, (Cairo, 1932).

233

• Ibn Māja, Muḥammad b Yazīd, Sunnan, 2 vols. , edited by F. Abdulbāqī, (Cairo, 1954). • Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-‘Arab, E. W. Lane, Arabic English Lexicon, 4 vols. ,(Edinburgh, 1867). • Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, Ᾱthār Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, (Beirut, 1966). • (Ibn Qayyim, Zād al-Ma‘ād, (Kānpūr, 1298 A.H.). • Ibn Rajab, Abdul Reḥmān Aḥmad al-Ḥanbalī, sharh, ‘Ilal, al- Tirmidhī.Zahiriya Lib. Ms. (Damascus, 1933). • Ibn Sa‘d, Muḥammad b Sa‘d, At-Ṭabaqāt al-Kabīr, 9 vols. edited By E. Sachau, (Leiden, 1904-1940). • Ibn Taimiya, Aḥmad b Abd al-Halīm, al-Muntaqa min Minhāj al-I‘tidāl, (Cairo, 1374 A.H). • Jamila Shaukat, Studies in Hadith, Faculity of Islamic and Oriental Learning, (University of the Punjab, Lahore, 2000). • Jeffery, Arther, Islam, Muhammad and his religion, (Indiana, 1979). • Juynboll, G. H. A. , Muslim Tradition, (Cambridge University Press Cambridge, 1983). • Kamālī, Moḥammad Hāshim. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Revised ed. (Cambridge, U. K. , 1991). • Khagga, Ferozud Dīn Shah, Ikhtilāf-e-Qirā’t aōr Naẓriya-e-Teḥrīf-e-Qur’ān, (Sheikh Zaid Islamic Center University of the Punjab, Lahore, 2006). • Al-Khatīb, Aḥmad b. ‘Alī al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh Baghdād, 14 vols., (Cairo, 1931). Al-Kifāya fī‘Ilm al-Riwāyah, (Hyderabad, 1357). Taqyīd al- Ilm, ed. Y. Eche, (Damascus, 1949). • Al-Khatīb, Muḥammad b. ‘Ajjāj, al- Sunnah Qabl at-Tadwīn, (Cairo, 1383/1963). Al-Jāmi‘ Li Akhlāq ar-Rāwi wa Ᾱdāb al-Sāmi‘, (Alexandria Municipal Library, 1982). • Koya,P. K. , Ḥadīth and Sunnah Ideals and Realities, (National Book Service Lahore, Pkistan, n.d.). • Lane, E.W. Lexicon, (Edinburgh, 1867). • Margoliouth, D. S. The early development of Mohammedanism, (Williams and Norgate, London, 1914). D. S. , Lectures on Arabic History, (Calcutta, 1930). Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, (London and New York G. P. Putnam’s sons, 1983).

234

• Martin Kramer, The Jewish Discovery of Islam, (The Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, 1999). • Maulana Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam, (S. Chand and Company LTD, New Delhi, n.d.). • Mālik b. Anas Muwattā’, 2 vols. , edited by M. F. ‘Abdul Bāqī, (Cairo, 1370/1951). • Montgomery Watt, Muhammad the Prophet and States man, (Oxford University press, New Yark, 1981). • Muhammad Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’ān and Orientalism, (Longman London and New York, 1983). • Mālik, b. Anas, Muwattā, al-nahi an al-qowl bi al-qadr, (Muwassisat Zaid b. Sultān al-Nihyān, Abū Dhabī, U. A. E. , 8 vols. , First edition, 1425/2004). • Malik Muhammad Aslam, The Role of Tradition in Islam, Institute of Islamic Studies, (University of the Punjab, Lahore. 1996). • Muslim, b al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushairī,Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. By M. F. Abd ul Bāqī, 5 vols. , (Cairo, 1400/1980). Ṣaḥīḥ. English translation by ‘Abd al-HamīṢiddīqī, 4 vols. , (Lahore 1972). at-Tamyīz, edited by M. M. Azami, (Riyaḍh, 1375/1975). • Najmee, Syed Abū al-Ḥassan, Islamic legal Theory and the Orientalists, (Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore, Pakistan, 1989). • Nasiruddin, Asad, Masadir al-Shi‘r al-Jahili, 2nd ed. Dar al- ma‘arif, (Cairo, 1962). • Nicholson, Reynold A. A Literary History of the Arabs,( Kitab Bhavan New Delhi, 1994). • Nicolas P. Aghnides, An introduction to Mohammedan Law and A Bibliography, (Sang-e-Meal Publications, Lahore, n. d.). • Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence,( Oxford; At the Clarendon Press, 1975). • Pasha, John Bagot Glubb, The Life and Times of Muhammad, Hodder and Stoughton, (London, 1970). • Patricia Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002). • Pirenne, Henry, A history of Europe, (George Allen & Unwin Limited, London, 1939). • Qamaruddin Khan, Conflict of reason and Tradition in Islam,( Book trust, 1994). • Al-Qāsimī, Jamāl al-Din: Qawa’id al-Taḥdīth, (Cairo, 1961). • Al-Qastalānī, al-Muwāhib al-Ladunniyya, with commentary of al-Zarqānī, (Cairo,1291).

235

• Qazwīnī, The book of Continuous Reports by single narrators collected in Brochures and copies thereof, As reported on the authority of the Chief of God’s messengers, Translated and Edited with introduction by Mohammad Hamīdullah, (Pakistan Hijrah Council Islamabad, 1991 A.D). • Al-Rāmahurmuzī, Ajjāj al-Khatīb, al-Muhaddith al-FāṢil bayn al- Rāwī wa al-Wa‘ī , (Beirut, 1971). • Said, Edward, Orientalism, (Routledge and Kegan Paul London, 1978). • Schacht, Joseph, An introduction to Islamic law, (Universal law Publishing Co. , 1997). • Al-Shāfi‘ī , Muḥammad b. Idrīs, Musnad. • Shaibānī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥujja ‘alā ahl al-Madīna, (edited by S. M. Ḥasan, Hadrabad, 1385/1965). • Al-Shātibī, al-Mawafaqāt fi usūl al-Shariya‘a, Maktaba Mustafā Muḥammad, (Cairo, 1967). • Shawkānī, Muḥammad b. ‘Alī, al-Fawā’id al-Majmūa‘a fi Bayān al- Ahādīth al- Mawdūa, (Lahore, 1223). • Sibā‘ī, M. Mustafā, As-Sunna wa Makanatuhā fī al-Tashrī‘ al- Islami, (Cairo, 1380/1961). • Siddigi, Muhammad Zubayr, Hadith Literature; Its Origins Development and Special Features, (Suhail Academy Lahore, 2001). • Sir Syed, Aḥmad Khan, A series of essays on the life of Muḥammad, (Premier Book House, Lahore, 1968). • Snouck, Hurgronje C. Muhammadanism, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge,1916). • Sohaib Ḥassan, Criticism of Ḥadīth Among Muslims with Refrence to Ibn Māja, Joint Publication with Tāhā Publishers, London and Al-Qur’ān Society, (London, 1986). • Southern R.W., Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages,(Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1962). • Stubbe, Henry : An Account of the Rise and Progress of Mahometanism, edited by Mahmood Khan Shairani, (Orientalia Publishers, Lahore, 1975). • Subkī, Abd al-Wahhāb b. ‘Alī (d. 771), Ṭabqāt al-Shāfa‘īya al-Kubrā, ed. Abd al- Fattah Muḥammad al-Ḥilw, and Maḥmud Muḥammad al-Tanahī, 10 vols., (Cairo, 1964-1976). • ūṭī, Abdur Raḥmān b. Abū Bakr, Tahdhīr al-KhawāṢ, min aḥādīth al-QuṢṢāṢ, (Beirut, 1972).

236

Tadrīb al-Rāwī, (Cairo, 1307). • Ṭabarī, Muḥammad b Jarīr, Annales (Tārīkh at-Ṭabari), Edited by A. Abul Faḍl Ibrāhīm(Paging according to De Goeje’s edition, Leiden, 1879-1901). • Taqī‘Usmānī, The Authority of Sunnah, (Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 1991). • Tirmidhī, Muḥammad b. ‘Īsā, al-Jāmi‘, 5 vols., edited by Aḥmad Shākir and others, (Cairo, 1356). • Al-‘Umarī, Akram b. Ḍia, Buḥūth fī Tārīkh al-Sunnah al- Mushrifa, (Basāṭ, Beiruit, 1985). • William Muir, William, The Life of Mahomet, (John Grant, Edinburgh, 1923). Mahomet and Islam, (Darf Publishers Limited, London, 1986). • Will Durant,The Age of Faith, (New Yark, 1983). • Zafar ‘AlīQureshī, Prophet Muḥammad and His Western Critics, (Idara Ma‘ārif Islam Mansoora, Lahore, 1992). • Al-Dhahbī, Tadhkirah-al-Huffāẓ, (Hyderabad, 1330 A.H). • Zirklī, Khairuddīn, al-A‘lām, 10 vols. , (Cairo, 1373).

Encyclopedias & Dictionaries

• Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, (T. & T. Clark Edimburgh, 1956).

• Oxford Advanced learners dictionary, 7th Edition, (Oxford University Press, 2007).

Articles • Anderson, J.N. D. Recent Developments in Shariya Law, Muslim World no.40, 1950, 245. • Fazlur Rahman, Concepts Sunnah, Ijtihad and Ijma in the Early Period. • Fitzgerald, S. V. , “The alleged debt of Islamic to Roman Law,” Law Quarterly Review, January 1951, no. 67. • Lyall, Charles, J. , The Words, “Hanif” and “Muslim” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 35, 1903. • Frank Hugh Foster, is Islam a Chritian heresy’ MW, vol. 23, January 1933, no. 1. • Foster, ‘Reply to Professor Margoliouth’s Article, January 1933’ MW, vol.23, April 1933, no. 2.

237

• Noth, Albrecht, Common Features of Muslim and Western Ḥadith Criticism: Ibn Al-Jawzī’s Categories of Ḥadīth Forgers, The Formation of Classical Islamic World, vol. 28, 2004. • Robson, James, the Isnad in Muslim Tradition, Glasgow University Oriental Society Transactions, vol. 15, 1953-4. • Robson, Ibn Ishaq’s Use of Isnad, Bulletin of John Rylands Library, Manchester, vol. 38,1956.