RSS

Monthly Archives: January 2015

A Brief Guide to Studying Sunni Aqidah

Disclaimer: No polemics please in the comments. This is purely for academic interest.

The following guide gives a decent overview of the main works of the Sunni schools in ‘aqidah. They are by no means comprehensive, but are fairly representative of each school. One who reads further into ‘aqidah finds that within each school there are a number of internal differences, often historical but even at times contemporary.

Athari

Beginner

  • Lam’at al-I’tiqad by Ibn Qudamah
  • Muqadimat al-Risalah by Ibn Abi Zayd
  • Bayan I’tiqad Ahl al-Sunnah by al-Tahawi

Intermediate

  • Sharh ‘Aqidah al-Tahawiyah by Ibn Abi al-‘Izz
  • ‘Aqidat al-Salaf wa Ashab al-Hadith by al-Sabuni
  • al-Shari’ah by al-Ajuri

Advanced

  • Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad Ahl al-Sunnah by al-Lalika’i

Ash’ari

Beginner

  • Qawa’id al-Aqa’id by al-Ghazali
  • al-Kharidah al-Bahiyah by Ahmad al-Dardir
  • Jawharat al-Tawhid by al-Laqqani
  • Umm al-Barahin by al-Sanusi

Intermediate

  • Tuhfat al-Murid ‘ala Jawharat al-Tawhid by al-Bajuri
  • Tawali’ al-Anwar by al-Baydawi
  • al-I’tiqad by al-Bayhaqi

Advanced

  • al-Irshad by al-Juwayni
  • al-Ibana by al-Ash’ari
  • al-Mujarrad by Ibn Furak
  • al-Tamhid by al-Baqillani

Maturidi

Beginner

  • Bad’ al-Amali by al-Ushi
  • ‘Umdat al-Aqidah by al-Nasafi

Intermediate

  • Sharh ‘Aqidat al-Nasafi by al-Taftazani
  • al-Musayara by Ibn al-Human

Advanced

  • Tabsirat al-Adillah by al-Makhluli
  • Kitab al-Tawhid by al-Maturidi
Advertisements
 
45 Comments

Posted by on January 21, 2015 in Aqidah

 

عدد الحديث الصحيح

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

اختلف علماء الحديث حول عدد الأحاديث النبوية الصحيحة. والراجح هو ما ذكره ابن حجر العسقلاني في كتاب “النكت على ابن الصلاح” (ص992): «ذكر أبو جعفر محمد بن الحسين في كتاب “التمييز” له، عن شعبة و الثوري و يحيى بن سعيد القطان و ابن المهدي و أحمد بن حنبل و غيرهم: أن جملة الأحاديث المسندة عن النبي r (يعني الصحيحة بلا تكرار): أربعة آلاف و أربعمئة حديث». وقال الحافظ ابن رجب في “جامع العلوم والحكم” (ص9): «وعن أبي داود قال: “نظرت في الحديث المسند فإذا هو أربعة آلاف حديث”». قلت: يقصد بالحديث المُسنَد: الحديث المتصل الصحيح. ولا يمكن حصر ذلك بأحاديث الأحكام لأسباب سنذكرها تباعاً.

ونحن نعلم أن علماء الحديث الذين يعتد بقولهم قد اتفقوا على صحة كل ما جاء في صحيحي البخاري و مسلم ما عدا أحاديث قليلة. فإذا كان مجموع ما في الصحيحين بدون تكرار هو: 2980 حديث، أي أقل قليلاً من 3000 حديث، مع تسليمنا بأن عدد الحديث الصحيح هو حوالي 4400 حديث، نستنتج أن حوالي ثلاثة أرباع الحديث الصحيح قد أخرجه الشيخان. و قد بقي قريب من الألف وأربعمئة حديث لم يخرجاه. والغالبية (العظمى) من الحديث المتبقي، موجودة عند الترمذي وأبي داود والنـَّسائي، كما ذكر النووي.

أما الأحاديث المهمة التي يدور عليها الحلال والحرام فنستطيع القول أنها كلها تقريباً موجودة في الصحيحين. وقد قدرها البعض بخمسمئة حديث. فقد روى البيهقي في “مناقب الشافعي” (1\915 تحقيق أحمد صقر): سُئِل الإمام الشافعي «كم أصول السنة (أي أصول الأحكام)؟». فقال” «خمسمئة». فقيل له: «كم منها عند مالك؟». قال«كلها إلا خمسة و ثلاثين». والمعروف أن غالب أحاديث الأحكام التي أخرجها مالك في الموطأ قد أخرجها البخاري ومسلم في صحيحيهما. ولذلك قام ابن دقيق العيد بكتابة كتاب في أحاديث الأحكام معتمداً على صحيحي البخاري ومسلم فقط. وفي الصحيح ما يُغني عن الضعيف.

قال إمام المغرب ابن عبد البر الأندلسي في كتابه “التمهيد” (10\278) عن بعض الأحاديث: «ولم يخرج البخاري ولا مسلم بن الحجاج منها حديثاً واحداً. وحسبك بذلك ضعفاً لها». ونقل ابن حجر عن ابن عبد البر قوله: «أن البخاري ومسلماً إذا اجتمعا على ترك إخراج أصلٍ من الأصول، فإنه لا يكون له طريقٌ صحيحةٌ. وإن وجِدَت، فهي معلولة». قال محمد الأمين: ولذلك تجد أن الشيخين قد استوعبا الأحاديث الأساسية التي تدور عليها أحكام الحلال والحرام. وكل ما بقي تقريباً يمكن استنتاجه بالقياس أو القرآن. والله أعلم.

قال الحاكم في “معرفة علوم الحديث” (ص60): «فإذا وُجِدَ مثل هذه الأحاديث بالأسانيد الصحيحة غير مخرَّجة في كتابي الإمامين البخاري ومسلم، لَزِمَ صاحب الحديث التنقير عن عِلّته، ومذاكرة أهل المعرفة به لتظهر علته». وقال الحافظ ابن مندة في “شروط الأئمة” (ص73) قال: قال سمعت (الحافظ أبو عبد الله) محمدُ بن يعقوب بن الأخرَمِ (شيخُ الحاكم) وذكر كلاماً معناه هذا: «قلَّ ما يَفُوتُ البخاريَّ ومسلماً مما يَثْبُتُ من الحديث». وقال الإمام ابن حزم في “الأحكام” بعد أن ذكر خبر “فمن أراد بحبوحة الجنة فليزم الجماعة”: «هذا الخبر لم يخرجه أحدٌ ممن اشترط الصحيح، ولكنا نتكلم فيه على عِلاّته». وقال الحافظ البيهقي في السنن الكبرى (10\278) عن أحاديث الرش من بول الغلام والغسل من بول الجارية: «وكأنها لم تثبت عند الشافعي حين قال: “ولا يتبين لي في بول الصبي والجارية فرق من السنة الثابتة”. وإلى مثل ذلك ذهب البخاري ومسلم حيث لم يودعا شيئاً منهما كتابيهما».

ومثال ذلك أيضاً الأحاديث المصرحة بالجهر بالبسملة، لم يخرج البخاري ومسلم شيئاً منها. قال الحافظ الزيلعي في نصب الراية (1|355): «وبالجملة فهذه الأحاديث كلها ليس فيها صريح صحيح، بل فيها عدمهما أو عدم أحدهما. وكيف تكون صحيحة، وليست مخرجة في شيء من الصحيح ولا المسانيد ولا السنن المشهورة؟!». ثم قال: «ويكفينا في تضعيف أحاديث الجهر: إعراض أصحاب الجوامع الصحيحة والسنن المعروفة والمسانيد المشهورة المعتمد عليها في حجج العلم ومسائل الدين. فالبخاري –رحمه الله– مع شدة تعصبه (وهذا الكلمة لا يوافَق عليها) وفرط تحامله على مذهب أبي حنيفة، لم يودع صحيحه منها حديثاً واحداً. ولا كذلك مسلم –رحمه الله–. فإنهما لم يذكرا في هذا الباب، إلا حديث أنس الدال على الإخفاء. ولا يقال في دفع ذلك أنهما لم يلتزما أن يودعا في صحيحيهما كل حديثٍ صحيحٍ، يعني فيكونان قد تركا أحاديث الجهر في جملة ما تركاه من الأحاديث الصحيحة. وهذا لا يقوله إلا سخيفٌ أو مكابرٌ. فإن مسألة الجهر بالبسملة، من أعلام المسائل ومعضلات الفقه، ومن أكثرها دوراناً في المناظرة وجَوَلاناً في المُصنَّفات. والبخاري كثير التّتبّع لما يرد على أبي حنيفة من السنة. فيذكر الحديث، ثم يُعَرِّضُ بذِكرهِ، فيقول: “قال رسول الله r كذا وكذا، وقال بعض الناس كذا وكذا”. يشير ببعض الناس، إليه (إلى أبي حنيفة) ويُشنِّعُ –لمخالفة الحديث– عليه. وكيف يَخلى كتابه من أحاديث الجهر بالبسملة، وهو يقول في أول كتابه “باب الصلاة من الإيمان”، ثم يسوق أحاديث الباب، ويقصد الرد على أبي حنيفة قوله “إن الأعمال ليست من الإيمان”؟! مع غموض ذلك على كثيرٍ من الفقهاء. ومسألة الجهر يعرفها عوام الناس و رُعاعِهِم. هذا مما لا يمكن، بل يستحيل. وأنا أحلف بالله –وبالله– لو اطّلَعَ البخاريُّ على حديثٍ منها موافقٌ بشرطِهِ –أو قريباً من شرْطه– لم يخل منه كتابه، ولا كذلك مسلم رحمه الله».

قال الحافظ ابن رجب الحنبلي في “الرد على من ابتع غير المذاهب الأربعة” (ص24): «وقد صنف في الصحيح مصنفات أُخر بعد صحيحي الشيخين، لكن لا تبلغ كتابي الشيخين. ولهذا أنكر العلماء على من استدرك عليهما الكتاب الذي سماه “المستدرَك”. وبالغ بعض الحفاظ فزعم أنه ليس فيه حديث واحد على شرطهما، وخالفه غيره وقال: يصفو منه حديث كثير صحيح. والتحقيق: أنه يصفو منه صحيح كثير على غير شرطهما، بل على شرط أبي عيسى ونحوه، وأما على شرطهما فلا. فقَلَّ حديثٌ تركاه، إلا وله علة خفية (لكن لا يشترط أن تكون قادحة). لكن لعِزَّة (أي لقلّة) من يعرف العلل كمعرفتهما وينقده، وكونه لا يتهيأ الواحد من منهم إلا في الأعصار المتباعدة، صار الأمر في ذلك إلى الاعتماد على كتابيهما والوثوق بهما والرجع إليهما، ثم بعدهما على بقية الكتب المشار إليها. ولم يقبل من أحد بعد ذلك الصحيح والضعيف، إلا عمن اشتهر حذقه ومعرفته بهذا الفن واطلاعه عليه. وهم قليلٌ جداً. وأما سائر الناس فإنهم يُعَوِّلون على هذه الكتب المشار إليها، ويكتفون بالعزو إليها».

قال الحافظ ابن عبد الهادي في تنقيح التحقيق (2\326): «هذا حديثٌ منكَرٌ لا يصحّ الاحتجاج به، لأنه شاذّ الإسناد والمتن، ولم يخرجه أحد من أئمة الكتب الستة، ولا رواه أحمد في مسنده، ولا الشافعي، ولا أحدٌ من أصحاب المسانيد المعروفة. ولا يُعرَفُ في الدنيا أحدٌ رواه، إلا الدارقطني عن البغوي. وقد ذكره الحافظ أبو عبد الله المقدسي في “المستخرَج”، ولم يروه إلا من طريق الدارقطني وحده. ولو كان عنده من حديث غيره، لذكره كما عُرِفَ من عادته أنه يذكر الحديث من المسانيد التي رواها، كمسند أحمد وأبي يعلى الموصلي ومحمد بن هارون ومعجم الطبراني وغير ذلك من الأمهات. وكيف يكون هذا الحديث صحيحاً سالماً من الشذوذ والعلة، ولم يخرجه أحدٌ من أئمة الكتب الستة ولا المسانيد المشهورة، وهم محتاجون إليه أشد حاجة؟!».

إحصائيات عن عدد الأحاديث في الكتب المشهورة:

مختصر صحيح مسلم للمنذري يبلغ مقداره 2200 حديثاً.

أفراد البخاري على مسلم من مختصر الزبيدي عددها 680 حديثاً مرفوعاً بلا مكرر.

بقي ما لَم يورده المنذري والزبيدي في الصحيحين، ويمكن إيجاده إمَّا من أصل الصحيحين مرفوعاً غير معلق، أو من “الجمع بين الصحيحين”، أو من “اللؤلؤ والمرجان”. وسوف تجتمع قرابة 100 حديثاً منهما.

فيكون مجموع ما في الصحيحين بدون تكرار هو:  2980 حديث، أي أقل قليلاً من ثلاثة آلاف حديث.

أفراد أبي داود على الصحيحين عددها 2450 حديثاً مرفوعاً بلا مكرر.

أفراد الترمذي على الصحيحين وأبي داود عددها 1350 حديثاً مرفوعاً بلا مكرر.

أفراد النَّسائي على الأربعة الذين سبق ذكرهم عددها 2400 حديثاً مرفوعاً بلا مكرر.

فيكون مجموع أفراد السنن على الصحيحين: 6200 حديثاً.

أي مجموع الأصول الخمسة التي تكاد تجمع كل الصحيح هو: 9180 حديثاً أكثرها ضعيف.

أفراد ابن ماجة على مَن سبق ذكرهم عددها 600 حديثاً مرفوعاً بلا مكرر. أكثر من 500 منها ضعيف.

أفراد الموطأ المرفوعة على الستة عددها 50 حديثاً.

أفراد نيل الأوطار (أغلبها أحاديث اشتهرت عند الفقهاء المتأخرين وأصلها من سنن الدارقطني ومعجم الطبراني)، عدّة تلك الأحاديث مرفوعة 500 حديثاً.

تبلغ أفراد المسند على مَن سبق ذكرهم مرفوعةً بلا مكرر ولا شواهد عند من سبق ذكرهم 1500 حديثاً.

فيكون مجموع الحديث كله الذي تجده مكتوبا في الكتب المشهورة: 11830 حديثاً. وقد سبق بيان أن الصحيح منها حوالي 4400 حديث.

ومما يشهد لتلك النتيجة أنه عندي كتاب “جمع الفوائد من جامع الأصول و مجمع الزوائد” الذي كتبه الإمام محمد بن محمد بن سليمان المغربي ثم الدمشقي (1039-1094هـ)، و خرَّجَ أحاديثه (تخريجاً مبدئياً) السيّد عبد الله هاشم اليماني المدني في كتاب “أعذب الموارد في تخريج جمع الفوائد”. وهو كتاب يجمع بين الكتب الحديثية الـ14، ومجموع أحاديثه بغير تكرار عشرة آلاف. وأنا أعمل على تخريجه والحكم على أحاديثه، وقد تبين لي أن أكثر من نصف أحاديثه ضعيفة. وهذا ينصر قول الجمهور في عدد الحديث الصحيح. مع الملاحظة بأن الحديث الحسن عند المتقدمين يعتبر من أنواع الحديث الضعيف كما أفاد شيخ الإسلام.

هذا ومن أسوأ ما بثه أصحاب المنهج الحديثي المتأخر: إيهامهم الناس أن الأحاديث الصحيحة المسندة قاع لا قرار له، وأنه بالإمكان اكتشاف سنّة جديدة أو محرّم جديد مع كل مخطوط حديثي يتمّ الوقوف عليه، بحجة: التصحيح بكثرة الطرق، بغضّ النظر عن شروط ذلك. وكأن التصحيح والتضعيف معادلة رياضية!  ثم بعد أن يصحّحوا ما ضعّفه المتقدمون، يقومون بلي أعناق النصوص الصريحة الصحيحة المخالفة بحجة: الجمع بين النصوص. ثم يبحثون في كلام أحد الأئمة المتقدمين ما يؤيّد صنعهم، بالرغم من أنهم لا يعتبرون كلام المتقدمين. ولكنه مبدأ: اعتقد ثم استدل. ونسي هؤلاء أنهم يطعنون في كمال الشريعة بهذا التصرف غير المسؤول. فإنه من غير المعقول أن يخبرنا الله سبحانه أنه أكمل ديننا وأتمّ نعمته، ثم يُخفي علينا أموراً شرعية لا يقدر على معرفتها سوى من سار على منهجهم المبتدع.

وقد ذكرنا في أول المقال أقوال العلماء وذكرهم لعدد الحديث الصحيح. وليس مهم العدد بالضبط، بقدر أهمية العلم بأن الأحاديث الصحيحة المسندة كانت معروفة متداولة، وهو أمر يتفق وكمال الشريعة وتمامها، لا كما يظنّ هؤلاء. للأسف فإنّ طرح هذه الحقائق المهمّة التي يحتاجها كلّ مسلم؛ يغيظ الكلاميين أصحاب المنهج الحديثي الظاهري المتأخر.  كيف لا وهي تسدّ عليهم باب اكتشاف سنن جديدة “غريبة!” أو “مهجورة!”، وهو ما يتباهون به ويروجون به بضاعتهم التي ظهر لكل عاقل كسادها. فاسعد أخي السني بهذه الحقيقة الرائعة التي تدلّ على أن الله حفظ دينه بحفظ كتابه أولاً، وبتركيز العلماء على الصحيحين أكثر من غيرهما من كتب السنة ثانياً.  أمّا من يظنّ أنه من الممكن أن يكتشف سنة جديدة مهجورة في “المعجم الأوسط” أو “تاريخ دمشق” كانت غائبة عن المسلمين قروناً، فمنهجه فاسد مآله إلى هدم السنّة، سخيف مكابر كما قال الزيلعي.

قال الإمام البيهقي (كما في مقدمة ابن الصلاح ص120): «الأحاديث التي صَحّت أو وقفت بين الصحة والسقم قد دوّنت وكُتِبَتْ في الجوامع التي جمعها أئمة الحديث. ولا يجوز أن يذهب شيء منها على جميعهم، وإن جاز أن يذهب على بعضهم، لضمان صاحب الشريعة حفظها. فمن جاء اليوم بحديث لا يوجد عند جميعهم لم يُقبل منه. ومن جاء بحديث معروفٍ عندَهم، فالذي يرويه لا ينفرد بروايته، والحجة قائمة بحديثه برواية غيره». والإمام البيهقي المتوفي سنة (458هـ) كان يتكلم عن عصره (قال: فمن جاء اليوم)، فما بالك بعصر ابن عساكر المتوفى سنة (571 هـ) ومن جاء بعده؟

شبهات وردود

1)  قال بعضهم: وذكر أبو محمد بن حزم أن مسند بقي بن مخلد احتوى من حديث أبي هريرة على خمسة آلاف حديث وكسر. فحديث أبي هريرة وحده أكثر مما في الصحيحين.

والجواب من وجوه:

  • يدخل في مصطلح “حديث” عند المتقدمين: كلّ ما وصلهم بسند، ومنه المرفوع والموقوف والمقطوع وأقوال العلماء الفقهية والمغازي سواء كانت صحيحة أم لا. ولذلك فإن الإمام أحمد كان يحفظ مليون حديث، فلماذا قال إنه لم يصح منها سوى 4400؟ والإمام أبو داود كان يحفظ نصف مليون، فلماذا قال إنه لم يصح سوى 4000؟
  • مرويات أبي هريرة (رضي الله عنه) الـ5374 تشمل المكرر والصحيح وغيره. وقد جزم شيخهم اللص علي الحلبي في مقدمة “الصحيفة الصحيحة” أن أحاديثه من غير المكرر لا تزيد على 2000 حديث، وهذا يشمل الصحيح وغيره. ويكاد كلها يكون قد روي من حديث صحابة غيره، كما حققه أحد الباحثين، وهي فائدة هامة.
  • المتتبع لروايات أبي هريرة t في الكتب التسعة (الصحيحين وسنن أبي داود والترمذي والنسائي وابن ماجة وموطأ مالك ومسند أحمد والدارمي) يجد أن أغلب الصحابة اشتركوا مع أبي هريرة في كل رواياته ما عدا ثماينة أحاديث فقط! والثمانية هي:
    1- ( بينما رجل راكب بقرة ) إلى آخر الحديث ، سنن الترمذي المناقب حديث رقم 3610
    2- ( قرأ رسول الله ( يومئذ تحّدث أخبارها ) ، سنن الترمذي صفة القيامة حديث رقم 2353
    3- ( أتدرون من المفلس … ) ، صحيح مسلم ، البر والصلة ، حديث رقم 4678
    4- ( أول من يُدعى يوم القيامة .. ) ، مسند أحمد ، باقي مسند المكثرين حديث رقم 8558
    5- ( أظلكم شهركم … ) ، مسند أحمد ، باقي مسند المكثرين حديث رقم 10365
    6- ( أعذر الله إلى امرئ .. ) ، صحيح البخاري ، الرقاق ، حديث رقم 5940
    7- ( أقرب ما يكون العبد .. ) ، صحيح مسلم ، الصلاة ، حديث رقم 744
    8- ( بينا أيوب يغتسل .. ) ، صحيح البخاري ، الغسلل ، حديث رقم 270
    والمعنى أنّ كل حديث في الكتب التسعة غير هذه الأحاديث الثمانية فإنه يوجد صحابي أو أكثر قد اشترك في رواية الحديث مع أبي هريرة ، فلم ينفرد أبو هريرة إلا بهذه الثمانية فقط (في الكتب التسعة). وهناك كتاب لمحمد يماني عن أبي هريرة t كان يضع فيها أحاديث أبي هريرة بالنص ويضع مقابلها نفس الروايات لكن من رواية غيره، ثم خلص إلى النتيجة السابقة.

2) قال بعضهم: قال البخاري: ما أدخلت في كتابي الجامع إلا ما صح وتركت من الصحاح لحال الطول. وقال مسلم: ليس كل شيء عندي صحيح وضعته ههنا، إنما وضعت ما أجمعوا عليه.

والجواب على ذلك: نقل ابن حجر في “هدى الساري” (ص18) عن الإسماعيلي أن البخاري قال: « لم أخرج في هذا الكتاب إلا صحيحاً، وما تركت من الصحيح أكثر… ». وقال: «ما أدخلت في كتابي الجامع إلا ما صح، وتركت من الصحاح لحال الطول». وفي بعض الروايات: «لملال الطول». والمراد: أنه ترك ذكر كثير من الأحاديث الصحيحة في كتابه، خشية أن يطول الكتاب فيمل الناس من طوله.

وعنه : «صنفت الجامع من ستمئة ألف حديث، في ست عشرة سنة. وجعلته حجة فيما بيني وبين الله». وكلمة “حديث” في اصطلاح المتقدمين من علماء الحديث معناها الإسناد. فيكون للمتن الواحد أسانيد كثيرة. وكل إسنادٍ يسمى حديث. فالبخاري لم يرد أن يذكر لكل متن كل الأسانيد التي وصلت إليه. فهذا ما قصده من كلمة “حديث” بدليل أنه قال: «أحفظ مئة ألف حديث صحيح، ومئتي ألف حديث غير صحيح». وقد ذكر الذهبي أن ما صح من ذلك (من المتون بغير تكرار) أقل من عشر معشار ذلك (أي أقل من عشرة آلاف). ولذلك قال الإسماعيلي: «لأنه لو أخرَجَ كل صحيحٍ عنده، لجمع في الباب الواحد حديث جماعةٍ من الصحابة، ولذَكَرَ طريقَ كُل واحدٍ منهم إذا صحّت، فيصير كتاباً كبيراً جداً».

وقال مسلم في صحيحه: «ليس كل شيء عندي صحيح وضعته هاهنا، إنما وضعت ما أجمعوا عليه». أي: ما وجد عنده فيه شرائط الصحيح المجمع عليها. وإذا فقد صحح أحاديث اتفق العلماء قبله على ضعفها. وصحح أحاديث لم يصححها أحد قبله. وقال: «لو أن أهل الحديث يكتبون مئتي سنة الحديث فمدارهم على هذا المسند»، يعني صحيحه. وهذا يدل على أنه استوعب غالب الصحيح.

2) قال بعضهم: قال البخاري: ما أدخلت في كتابي الجامع إلا ما صح وتركت من الصحاح لحال الطول. وقال مسلم: ليس كل شيء عندي صحيح وضعته ههنا، إنما وضعت ما أجمعوا عليه.

والجواب على ذلك: نقل ابن حجر في “هدى الساري” (ص18) عن الإسماعيلي أن البخاري قال: « لم أخرج في هذا الكتاب إلا صحيحاً، وما تركت من الصحيح أكثر… ». وقال: «ما أدخلت في كتابي الجامع إلا ما صح، وتركت من الصحاح لحال الطول». وفي بعض الروايات: «لملال الطول». والمراد: أنه ترك ذكر كثير من الأحاديث الصحيحة في كتابه، خشية أن يطول الكتاب فيمل الناس من طوله.

وعنه : «صنفت الجامع من ستمئة ألف حديث، في ست عشرة سنة. وجعلته حجة فيما بيني وبين الله». وكلمة “حديث” في اصطلاح المتقدمين من علماء الحديث معناها الإسناد. فيكون للمتن الواحد أسانيد كثيرة. وكل إسنادٍ يسمى حديث. فالبخاري لم يرد أن يذكر لكل متن كل الأسانيد التي وصلت إليه. فهذا ما قصده من كلمة “حديث” بدليل أنه قال: «أحفظ مئة ألف حديث صحيح، ومئتي ألف حديث غير صحيح». وقد ذكر الذهبي أن ما صح من ذلك (من المتون بغير تكرار) أقل من عشر معشار ذلك (أي أقل من عشرة آلاف). ولذلك قال الإسماعيلي: «لأنه لو أخرَجَ كل صحيحٍ عنده، لجمع في الباب الواحد حديث جماعةٍ من الصحابة، ولذَكَرَ طريقَ كُل واحدٍ منهم إذا صحّت، فيصير كتاباً كبيراً جداً».

وقال مسلم في صحيحه: «ليس كل شيء عندي صحيح وضعته هاهنا، إنما وضعت ما أجمعوا عليه». أي: ما وجد عنده فيه شرائط الصحيح المجمع عليها. وإذا فقد صحح أحاديث اتفق العلماء قبله على ضعفها. وصحح أحاديث لم يصححها أحد قبله. وقال: «لو أن أهل الحديث يكتبون مئتي سنة الحديث فمدارهم على هذا المسند»، يعني صحيحه. وهذا يدل على أنه استوعب غالب الصحيح.

إحصائيات وأرقام

حسب النتائج التي أعطاها برنامج شركة حرف للكتب التسعة. وهي نتائج تقريبية لكنها قريبة للواقع. فمثلاً: صحيح مسلم حسب ترقيم عبد الباقي 3033. بينما مختصر صحيح مسلم للمنذري يبلغ مقداره 2200 حديثاً فقط. والفرق بسبب التكرار. وإذا اعتبرنا الأحاديث المرفوعة فقط وغير المكررة (وفقاً للبرنامج) وأخذنا نسبة ما وافقت فيه أحاديث كتاب لأحاديث في البخاري أو مسلم، فنحصل على النتائج التالية:

عدد أحاديث الكتاب عددها نسبة الأحاديث المشتركة مع أحد الصحيحين الكتاب
732 517 71% موطأ مالك
5352 3622 68% سنن النسائي الصغرى
4326 2033  47% أبو داود
3735 1702 46% الترمذي

نجد مما سبق أن أصح الكتب الأربعة هو موطأ مالك (وهو أصغرها) ثم سنن النسائي (وهو أكبرها) ثم يتساوى سنن أبي داود مع سنن الترمذي، لكن سنن الترمذي أفضل لأن الترمذي يحكم على عامة أحاديثه وكثيرا ما يُبيّن علل الضعيف منها، بينما هذا قليل من أبي داود. وفي دراسة لأحد الباحثين قام بمقارنة أحكام الألباني على السنن، فتبين أن نسبة الأحاديث الصحيحة والحسنة عند الألباني (وهو متساهل) في سنن النسائي تبلغ 92% بينما هي حوالي 80% في سنن أبي داود والترمذي، لكن نسبة الأحاديث الضعيفة جداً عند الترمذي أكثر من أبي داود. ومع ذلك يبقىسنن الترمذي أفضل لأنه يحكم على الأحاديث.

http://www.ibnamin.com/num_hadith.htm

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 17, 2015 in Hadith/Sunnah

 

Contemporary Scholars on al-Dhahabi’s Talkhis of al-Hakim’s al-Mustadrak

Recently, a new edition of al-Hakim al-Naysaburi’s al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn has been published by Dar al-Ta’sil in Cairo. This has reminded me of some comments by two of the leading contemporary hadith scholars on al-Dhahabi’s Talkhis. The first is a question answered by Dr. Hatim al-Awni al-Sharif, a respected scholar of Hadith who teaches at Umm al-Quraa University in Makkah. The second is taken from Dr. Bashar Awad Ma`ruf’s introduction to his edition of Jami’ at-Tirmidhi. He is a leading scholar of Hadith from Iraq, and an expert on al-Dhahabi and al-Mizzi. Both of these shed considerable light on al-Hakim’s Mustadrak as well as al-Dhahabi’s Talkhis which is a summary of al-Mustadrak:

Question: I know that al-Hâkim’s Mustadrak contains a lot of weak hadîth, though he claims that all the hadîth in it are authentic according to the conditions of either al-Bukhârî or Muslim. We often read in books that al-Dhahabî has concurred with al-Hâkim’s assessment. When this is the case, does that mean we can accept with confidence that the hadîth is authentic?

Answered by al-Sharif Hatim al-`Awni

What al-Dhahabî does in his Talkhîs with respect to al-Hâkim’s Mustadrak is simply to abridge it. He does the same for a number of other books. Generally, an abridged work does not include anything extraneous to what is found in the original. Quite the contrary, there is material from the original that is omitted.

However, al-Dhahabî does not leave his abridged works without volunteering some comments of his own for the benefit of the readers. He does not add these comments according to any organized scheme or methodology, but offers them whenever he feels like doing so.

Bear in mind that al-Dhahabî never says anywhere that when he relates al-Hâkim’s verdict on a hadîth without making a comment of his own that he is agreeing with al-Hâkim’s assessment – or even that he does not object to it – and that such an assessment can be attributed to him as well.

It is clear from looking al-Dhahabî’s Talkhîs that he is merely mentioning after every hadîth al-Hâkim’s ruling on its authenticity. If he wants to add any comments of his own, he clearly states that he is doing so by starting with the words “I say…”

Therefore, all the verdicts on the hadîth that are found in the Talkhîs without being preceded by the words “I say…” are merely the rulings given by al-Hâkim himself.

The assumption that al-Dhahabî’s silence is some sort of tacit agreement is a very weak assumption to make, because it is contrary to the normal conventions employed when making an abridgement of another’s work. Generally, all that is done is to relate what is in the original.

We know for a number of reasons that al-Dhahabî does not give his personal assessment in every hadîth where he disagrees with al-Hâkim.

First of all, al-Dhahabî in his encyclopedic Târikh al-Islam “The History of Islam” says the following in his biographical entry on al-Hâkim, wherein he speaks about his Mustadrak:

“The Mustadrak contains a good number of hadîth that conform to the conditions of authenticity of both (al-Bukhârî and Muslim) as well as a number of hadîth conforming to the conditions of either one of them. Perhaps the total number of such hadîth comprises half the book. There is roughly another quarter of the hadîth that have authentic chains of transmission, but that have something else about them or that have some defect. As for the rest, and that is about a fourth, they are rejected and spurious narrations that are unauthentic. Some of those are fabrications. I came to know of them when I prepared an abridgement of the Mustadrak and pointed them out.”

This statement from al-Dhahabî makes it clear that he does not point out all of the spurious narrations that he mentions in his Talkhîs. He only takes care to comment on some of them, particularly those that are fabrications.

Does he not say that about one quarter of the book is made up of “rejected and spurious narrations”? In his Talkhîs, he only comments on about one-eight of the hadîth that are found in the Mustadrak. There is a total of 9045 hadîth in al-Hâkim’s Mustadrak. Al-Dhahabî, in his Talkhîs, comments on only 1182 hadîth, while a quarter of the hadîth in the Mustadrak would amount to 2261 hadîth. (These figures are taken from the editorial introduction of Ibn al-Mulaqqin’s Mukhtasar Istidrâk al-Dhahabî, 8-9)

On this basis, it is clear that al-Dhahabî was aware of double the number of spurious hadîth than those that he comments on. He is, however, silent about them. In light of this fact, can we construe his silence to indicate his agreement with al-Hâkim that those hadîth are authentic? Moreover, we know that another quarter of the Mustadrak, in al-Dhahabî’s opinion, are hadîth that are apparently authentic but contain some hidden defects that compromise their authenticity. How, then, can we possibly construe his silence to indicate his agreement with al-Hâkim?

What also shows us that al-Dhahabî’s silence is not his agreement with al-Hâkim is that al-Dhahabî, in his other writings, criticizes a number of hadîth that he remains silent about in his Talkhîs. Among these are the following:

1. In Mîzân al-I`tidâl (1/136, #547), al-Dhahabî quotes a hadîth authenticated by al-Hâkim that he remains silent about in the Talkhîs, and declares it to be false. Then he says: “Al-Hâkim says it has an authentic chain of transmission. I say quite the contrary. He says that its narrators are all Madinites. I say otherwise. He says they are all reliable, whereas I say that I suspect the narrator Ahmad.”

2. In Mîzân al-I`tidâl (3/179, #6042), al-Dhahabî quotes a hadîth authenticated by al-Hâkim that he remains silent about in the Talkhîs, and says: “Al-Hâkim authenticates it, though, as you can see, it is a rejected hadîth.”

3. In al-`Ulû lil-`Alî al-`Azim (1/593, #146), al-Dhahabî quotes a hadîth authenticated by al-Hâkim that he remains silent about in the Talkhîs, and says: “The narrators Sharîk and `Atâ’ have weakness about them that does not bring their hadîth to being rejected. Yet this (text) is something seriously problematic that leaves the listener confused. I wrote it down merely as a digression because of its strangeness. It is something of the nature of ‘hear it and keep silent’.”

After all of this, if someone insists on construing al-Dhahabî’s silence on al-Hâkim’s verdict as indicating his agreement with it, then I must ask him: What is the value of this agreement? Al-Dhâhabî clearly states that his Talkhîs “…is in considerable need of work and editing.” [Siyar A`lâm al-Nubalâ’ (17/176)] This “considerable need” is so great that he has not followed up on a quarter of what he feels needs it. Insisting upon such an opinion is an insult to al-Dhahabî; it is not a compliment.

Admittedly, there have been many prominent scholars who have assumed that al-Dhahabî’s silence in his Talkhîs indicates his tacit approval of al-Hâkim’s ruling, scholars of the caliber of al-Suyûtî [al-Nukat al-Badî`ât (197)], al-Manâwî [Fayd al-Qadîr], and al-Husaynî [al-Bayân wa al-Ta`rîf]. Many contemporary scholars follow this view as well. However, the evidence clearly shows us that al-Dhahabî’s silence in his Talkhîs is not his tacit approval.

And Allah knows best.

———————————————

al-Dhahabi and the Mustadrak of al-Hakim

by Dr. Bashar Awad Ma`ruf

[From the introduction to his critical edition of al-Tirmidhî’s al-Jâmi` al-Kabîr published by Dâr al-Jayl, Beirut]

The book al-Mustadrak `alâ al-Sahîhayn by `Abd Allah al-Hâkim al-Naysâbûrî (d. 403 AH) is an encyclopedic work, well known among scholars. Its author claims that he has found authentic hadîth left out by the two authorities – al-Bukhârî and Muslim – though it actually contains some objectionable material. Al-Dhahabî writes in his biographical encyclopedia entitled Siyar A`lâm al-Nubalâ’ “Biographies of Outstanding Personalities”:

“The Mustadrak contains a lot of hadîth that conform to the conditions of authenticity of both (al-Bukhârî and Muslim) as well as a number of hadîth conforming to the conditions of either one of them. Perhaps the total number of such hadîth comprises a third of the book or less. A lot of the book is comprised of hadîth that appear on the surface to be on the conditions of one or both of them, but that have hidden within them subtle but substantial defects. A portion of the book contains chains of transmission that are good and acceptable. This is about a fourth of the book. The rest of the book is comprised of rejected and extremely strange hadîth. At the same time, there are about one hundred hadîth that the heart declares to be false…”

Al-Dhahabî, when he first embarked upon the study of hadîth, prepared abridgements of a number of books, one of which was the Mustadrak. It has become the habit of scholars today working in the field of hadîth, when compiling them and determining their authenticity, to say things like: “It is authenticated by al-Hâkim and al-Dhahabî concurs.” In doing so, they are referring to al-Dhahabî’s Talkhîs, his abridgement of the Mustadrak that is often published along with it in its margins.

We see this as a serious misunderstanding that must be pointed out. We do not know from where this idea came or how it got started. When al-Dhahabî abridged the book, it was not his intention to discuss the authenticity or the inauthenticity of its hadîth. He merely speaks about some of most serious errors made by al-Hâkim’s in his book, mentioning them along with his abridgement, as is his habit when he abridges any book.

There are three reasons that we know this:

First, al-Dhahabî says in Siyar A`lâm al-Nubalâ’ (17/176): “It is a useful book. I had made an abridgement of it that is in considerable need of work and editing.”

This statement is one of the clearest proofs that he merely abridged the Mustadrak and did not critically review al-Hâkim’s rulings. Otherwise, what does he mean when he says it “…is in considerable need of work and editing”?

Secondly, we find that in his other books, al-Dhahabî, clearly states his disagreement with rulings that al-Hâkim’s gives in the Mustadrak in places where al-Dhahabî, in his Talkhîs, either reiterates al-Hâkim’s ruling or remains silent.

For example, when speaking about Mu`âwiyah b. Sâlih in Mîzân al-I`tidal (4/135), he writes: “He is among those narrators whom Muslim accepts but not al-Bukhârî. You can see al-Hâkim relating this narrator’s hadîth in his Mustadrak and say: ‘This is according to the conditions of al-Bukhârî.’ He repeatedly makes this mistake.”

However, when the same statement comes up in his Talkhîs, he says nothing about it. Whoever compares the rulings found in the Talkhîs with those that al-Dhahabî makes in his other writings will find that there is considerable disagreement.

Thirdly, when al-Dhahabî writes in his Talkhîs “according to the conditions of al-Bukhârî and Muslim” or writes “authentic”, he is merely giving al-Hâkim’s ruling as found in the Mustadrak. He is not expressing his own viewpoint. Therefore, we cannot attribute these opinions to al-Dhahabî himself.

Adapted from https://islamicsciences.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/al-mustadrak-of-al-hakim-and-al-dhahabis-talkhis/#more-32

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 17, 2015 in Hadith/Sunnah

 

A’zami on Calder

On Calder’s Organically Grown Text with Emphasis on Muwatta of Malik by Shaykh Muṣtafā al-A’ẓamī. Note that Norman Calder is considered one of the most important modern Orientalists and his work is still referenced and studied at tertiary level. He was a professor at Manchester University and died of cancer in 1998 at the age of 47. 

1. Abstract:

Norman Calder’s work: “Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence” was published by Oxford University Press in 1993.

He has studied six legal texts of three Muslim legal schools, These are:

1. Mudawwana of Sahnun

2. Muwatta of Malik

3. Some Hanafi text

4. The Kitab al-Umm of Shafi’i

5. The Mukhtasar of Muzani

6. Kital-al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf

He started with Malik; then Hanafi and afterwards the Shafi’i school of law. In his conviction he proved that not only these six books, no, but all the Islamic Arabic literature which claim to be of the 1st., 2nd. and early 3rd. centuries have all gone through organic growth and a multi-level redactional process.

For his research of the above topic he has chosen the secular historians discipline and invites Muslim scholars to “participate more widely in the game and in the rules ….” (p. viii). Due to the time limitation, I will discuss only the case of Muwatta, with special reference to the ‘cat hadith’ which has been used by Calder to prove that this hadith was invented after the completion of Mudawwana, after 250 A.H. and was endorsed into Muwatta of Malik (d. 179 A.H.). This is an essential basis for his theory that all early Islamic text is organically grown text.

1.1 Methodology Used by Muslim Scholars:

It is fundamental to every area of research, in any topic, that one has to understand the text, and to understand the text one has to follow the rules governing the subject.

The following is a very brief explanation of the method used by early Muslim scholars in collecting and transmitting information.

All Muslims, not just to speak of Muslim scholars, believe the Qur’an is of divine origin revealed to the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.s This Book imposes on Muslims, both as individuals and collectively, and the State to follow the orders and manners of the Prophet s.a.w s. (For details see On Schacht’s pp 5-25). The Prophet’s orders were put into practice. His statements and deeds were put into practice, memorised and written down. In a very literal sense several thousand booklets containing the sayings and deeds of the Prophet s.a.w.s. were in the hands of scholars in the first and early second century Higra. (for details see: Studies in Early Hadith Literature by Azami, pp 34-182).

To ensure the purity of the text two methods were applied, for two different stages:

1. The disclosure of the sources. In the final stage the source must lead to the person who had direct contact to the highest authority to whom the statement belonged.

2. A continuous chain of the middle authority must be preserved.

3. Everyone who has taken part in transforming the knowledge must be trustworthy, which means: he must possess the following moral and academic qualities; must be a Muslim, madure, not tell a lie not suffer from any mental disqualification, must be of righteous conduct with the literary accuracy (Hadith Methodology by Azami, pp 58-59).

1.2 Preservation of the Book:

The second stage: when the materials were collected in booklets or books big or small, it was not pemissible for anyone to obtain a copy of any book and utilize it. The book must be obtained through recognised legitimate methods, such as reading to the author, or having it read by him etc. (see Hadith Methodology by al-Azami, pp 16-22 for details).

1.3 Reading Certificate: Its Main Achievements:

After completion of the reading a certificate was given, and a note was written by the trustworthy scholars, many times signed by the teacher himself explaining who had taken part in learning this particular book, and therefore, who had the right to teach it. After receiving the book through proper channels the scholar was not entitled to teach the book, for example Sahih of Bukhari, from any edition of Bukhari. It had to be the same copy for which he had the reading certificate, or another copy made from the same copy, and thoroughly revised after copying etc. and thus, this scholar became a part of the chain of the book.

These certificates were surrounded by lines so no one could add any further names. If a man’s name was written between the lines, or with a different pen or ink then he was accused and defamed. These certificates sometimes ran to one or two hundred pages with different handwritings and dates. (see Ibn Maja, Taimur Pasha – Cairo).

1.4 Rare Examples of Adding External Material in the Body of a Book:

Most of the people who listened to ahadith and copied them out had their own books. Students felt at liberty to include additional material even in a fixed text to clarify some obscure word, or thei own opinion or some such thing. As any additional material would have a completely different isnad or the name of the inserter, there was no danger of spoiling the the text. In Appendix IV of Studies of Early Hadith Literature by al-Azami, there appears a very explicit and clear example of this sort, where the copyist has added two lines even before completing the sentences. There is another example of Abu Sa’id, the transmitter of the book Al-Muhaddar, where he adds two lines. There is clear evidence of this nature in Sahih of al-Bukhari, where al-Firabri adds extraneous material, giving his isnad, (for details see Studies in Early Hadith Literature pp. 204-205).

Because the sources were known, and the isnads of the books were known, a comparison of the texts narrated by different scholars showed if there had been any variations due to human error, or deliberate mischief.

Khatib al-Baghdadi (392-463) quotes in his book, Tarikh, a case of a Hanbali judge who added two ahadith in the musnad of Ibn Hanbal which contains some 28,000 hadith, who was later caught. A memorandum was written and was signed by different scholars. We have the work of Imam Malik, the Muwatta, which has been edited in the sixth and seventh centuries Hijra using almost dozens of the manuscripts from the third to the sixth century.

This is a very brief and cursory sketch of Muslim scholars method in learning, teaching, accepting and rejecting these materials.

2. Western Methodological Approach to the Study of Islam:

The methodology outlined in Part 1 is completely unacceptable to the western mind. As examples, let us consider; the Albert Einstein memorial lecture by J. Wonbrough in 1986, titled “Res Ipsa Loquitur, History and Nemesis”. Then there was an article by J. Koren and Yahuda D. Nevo from Midereshet Ben Gurion, Israel, (Der Islam 1991) titled “Methodological Approaches to Islamic Studies”. These learned scholars discuss the different approaches at work.

These are:

– The traditional approach: This does not mean the Muslim scholars traditional approach. Not at all, it actually refers to all the Western scholars who utilize Islamic sources, hoping to find some- where some facts in the pile of rubbish and distortions (lies), which is totally unacceptable to these above mentioned scholars.

– The “revisionist approach”: Here, they discuss the approach of Wansbrough, and the situation for Wansbrough is so bad that he had little hope of finding anything concrete. Then, they discuss their own approach, that is the ultra revisionist approach. Some of the findings of this highly sophisticated method are:

Muslims did not conquer Syria nor did they conquer Palestine etc. they did not defeat the Romans. It was a peaceful transfer of control from Byzantine to the Arabs (p. 101). Perhaps we may add, it was given to the Arabs on a silver plate!

Another finding is that “archaelogical work has revealed no traces of Jewish settlements at Medinah, Xaybar, or Wadi Qurra” (p. 102) ` Even the very Kaba at Mecca is doubtful. The early sketch of Kaba in Jahili literature shows center cubic buildings in Nageb and not in Mecca. (p. 103)

However, new players are coming into the field, marching with Goldzihar, J. Schacht, Patricia Crone, Yahuda Nova and Wansbrough etc.

Talking about the dog and its effect on the purity of water, he says “The text has grown organically.”

In analysing the text of Mudawwana, Dr Calder points to the development of legal thought in generalisation, of what constitutes the water unfit for purification purposes.

“It is clear that the dog emerged as a problem……..Presumably the law developed that wild animals………rendered water unfit for purification. In this context, the dog (domestic, not wild) is not a problem, and Malik is seen to state, at Paragraph 2.1 just that: dogs do not render water unfit for purposes of purification. However, it came to be felt that the category of animals which rendered water unfit was the category of carrion-eating or predatory animals. According to this interpretation, the dog was a problem and the question presented itself why, being a carrion-eater, the dog did not render water impure? This problem is what is expressed throughout 2.2.a,b and c. First, Ibn al- Qasm states that Malik did not treat the dog like other animals of the same kind…..” (p.7)

The question which Sahnun asks at 2.3 relates to a Prophetic hadith which will be discussed in Chapter 2, Section V of these studies. The reply ascribed to malik indicates that he knows the hadith but he “does not know the truth about it”. The series of comments thereafter indicate how the emergence of the notion that Prophetic hadith are authoritive disrupted the natural development of legal thought and drafting technique.

Malik first suggests a category distinction (dogs are members of the household) which within the developing system might have sufficed. He then apparently concedes some force to the hadith but continues to argue against it on moral and practical grounds.” (p.8)

“There was a considerable resistance in the implication of the hadith referred to (not cited) in the text.” (p.8)

Norman Calder did not close the case of the dog in Mudawwana, where he has found a ruling of Malik “as minor concessions to the anti-dog lobby ……..” (p.15). He dicovers a way to fight against the dog hadith ascribed to the Prophet in Muwatta, with so many far reaching consequences, he quotes from Muwatta the following hadith:

Yahya from Malik, from Ishaq b. “Abdallah b. Abi Talha, from Humayda bint Abi Ubayda ibn Farwa, from Kabsha bint Ka’b b. Malik, daughter-in- law of (the Companion) Abu Qatada.

1. She said that Abu Qatada came in one day and she poured out for him his water for ablutions. A cat arrived, desiring to drink at the water, and Abu Qatada tilted the vessel to let it drink.

2. She said that Abu Qatada, on seeing her watching him said, Are you surprised? Yes, she replied. He said, The Prophet of God said, They are not polluting (najis); they are amongst those (animals) which are always around you, both male ones and female ones (innama hiya min al-tawwafin ‘alayhum aw al-tawwafat).

3. Yahya said, Malik said, There is no harm in it except when some polluting filth can be seen on its mouth (p.25).

Calder commenting on the hadith of the cat’s lapping of the water says: “In the text of the Mudawwana, it was possible to detect that a juristic problem arose when the condemnation of predatory (wild) animals as conveyors of pollution was generalised to cover also the household dog (and cat). The response, initially casuistic, and focused on the dog, took the form of a category explanation based on the assertion that household animals costituted a category relevantly different frm pedatory (wild) animals. There was, however, embarassment in the face of a Prophetic hadith, alluded to but not cited in the Mudawwana, which proposed an extreme condemnation of dogs as particularly polluting. This hadith about the cat is clearly a response to the same problem. It is charmingly circumstantial, it avoids the contentious dog, and yet it points firmly towards the fact that the cat here is to be seen as representative of a category, namely that of animals which are habitually around human beings. It is clear that this represents a juristic advance on the situation reflected in the Mudawwana in two respects. First, and simply, it makes a clear statement of a category distinction and thereby transcends some of the confusion that has crept into the Mudawwana. And secondly, it responds to a Prophetic hadith in the only form in which an authoritative response could be made, namely in the form of another Prophetic hadith. It is inconceivable that this hadith could have been made available by Malik, in or before 179, with the backing of Prophetic authority and in a situation where Prophetic authority counted, and yet not have affected the text of the Mudawwana, which exhibits after all not only a need for authority on this matter but also a broad concern to gather all relevant material. The elevation of Prophetic authority is a marginal feature of the Mudawwana; it was the continued development and ultimate ascendancy of this principle- after the completion of the Mudawwana- that led to the emergence and formulation of this hadith, and its incorporation into a canonical work assiciated with the city of Cordoba.” (p.24-26)

His concluding remark is: “It is a fitting and reasonable conclusion that the familar Muwatta’ in the rescension of Yahya was a product of Spanish Cordoba during that period when Baqi and Ibn Waddah were introducing, with the backing of the court, reforms of which the central component was a stressing of hadith at the expense of ra’y. It is a book specifically designed to reformulate the Maliki system of law in formal subordination to Prophetic authority. Such a need can hardly have been recognized in Spain prior to the period of political influence of Baqi b. Makhlad and it is to that period that the Muwatta’ should be dated, i.e. c270.” (p.37)

2.1 General Remarks:

2.2 No attention for suitable material for research:

Dr Calder does not pay any serious attention to the different natures of these two books. The Mudawwana belongs completely to the Maliki school, while Muwatta’ has two types of material; one is the Prophetic traditions; and the other of the Companions and the late authorities. This is the heritage for all Muslims, without confining it to a certain school. we find that those materials, specially the Prophetic traditions from Muwatta’ have been transmitted and acted upon in the light of their juristic thinking, in every rival school, so to say, such as Hanafi, Shafi’ and hanbali. Mudawwana however is a school text. It’s main purpose is to collect the legal opinions of the school, mainly Malik.

2.3 Over generalisation:

Dr Calder studies a portion of a single chapter out of some 3000 chapter and imposes his speculative findings on the whole Muslim literature of three hundren years. Let us have a look at Shaibani’s work. One finds in his work Athar, Muwatta’ and Radda’ala Ahl Il Madina, quite good numbers of Prophetic traditions. Compare it with the al-Jami al-Kabir by the same author, that has almost none. This is a very fundamental issue for the research in any field, to choose the right material. From criminal novels one cannot compile a book on the criminal law. Yet, Dr. Calder seems to have tried to do just that.

2.4

He does not utilize the materials published on the subject for half a century. Either he does not know them or disregards them as being worthless. Neither does he pay any attention to Schacht critiques, such as “On Schacht’s Origin…..” by al-Azami.

If we look at the case in a little detail on his own terms:

Malik is one of the luckies persons in Islamic history. We still have a record of the name of 1300 of his students, and among them there have been more than 100 students who had transmitted his work, Muwatta, whose locality has been distributed from modern Afghanistan in the east to Portugal in the west; Turkey in the north and to Yemen in the south. In the fourth and fifth century many scholars such as Daraqutni, and Jauhri had written a book describing the differences in some fifteen versions of Muwatta. The work of Daraqutni has been published some forty years ago, other works are still on the shelves. However, still we have the following recession of Muwatta Malik:

1. Muwatta Yahya al-Laithi from Qordoba, Spain, died 234. This has been continuously published many times in 150 years.

2. Muwatta Shaibani, from Kufa, Iraq, died in 188 AH, and it has been constantly published for more than one hundred years.

3. Muwatta Ibn Ziyad of Tunisia, died 183 AH, (a part of it was discovered and published) before 100 AH.

4. Muwatta al-Qa’nabi in Basra, Iraq, died 221. A part of this work has survived and was published in 1392/1972.

5. Muwatta in recession of Abu Mu’ab al-Zuhri, died in Madina 150-242AH. First published in 1412/1992.

6. Muwatta in recession of AbdulRahman b. Qasim, 132-191 AH, from Palestine, later on he lived in Egypt and died there. The hadith material has been re-arranged by al-Qabisi (died 403 AH), which was published 1400/1980 in Qatar.

7. Muwatta in recession of Hadathani from Anbar, Iraq, died 240 AH, which was published in 1990 in Beirut.

8. Muwatta Abdul-Rahim b. Khalid of Iskandaria, died 163 AH, (some 15 years before Malik). One papyrus sheet has been discovered, and published by Nabia Abbot in 1967 in Chicago University Publications.

9. Muwatta in recession of Ibn Bukair, 134-231 AH, in Egypt. A somplified version of this work was published in Algeria in 1907. (This has not been seen by al-Azami.)

10.Musannaf of Abul-Razzaq al-Aan’ani, died 126-211). A Yaminite scholar and student of Malik. Printed in Beirut 1390/1970.

Going through these different versions of Muwatta regarding the “cat hadith” the following result comes out: This particular hadith has been quoted by:

1. Muw. Yahya al-Laithi Vol I, pp.22-23, Cordoba, Spain, (d.234)

2. Muw. Shaibani No 90 p.54, Kufa, Iraq (d.188)

3. Muw. Ibn Qasim No. 123, p. 176, from Eqypt (d.191)

4. Muw. al-Qanabi pp.45-46

5. Muw. Abu Mus’ab al-Zuhri No.54, Vol I, p.25, Madina, Arabian Peninsula (d.242)

6. Muw. Hadathani No.28 p.55, from Afghanistan, died in Iraq 240.

7. Muw. Ibn Bukair Folio No.6B-7a (al-Azhar) from Egypt, (d.231)

8. Mus. AbdulRazzaq, Vol I, p.101, A Yaminite, died in Yemen in 211 AH.

If we analyse these versions we find they belong to Afghanistan, Iraq, Arabian Peninsula, Yemen, Egypt and Spain.

Now, we are facing a problem. Two of the students of Malik who record this hadith in their books died almost within a decade after Malik, a third on 211 AH. Five out of eight died between 230-240. If this hadith was fabricated after Malik’s death (179 AH) or even much better, after 250 AH, after the completion of the Mudawwana, then one has to solve the problem of a dead man’s communication! And how they were able to insert this material, or whether it was done by their legal appointees who carried out this type of activity if they deemed it necessary.

One may say that the works Nos. 5-7 were not available to Dr Calder, but what about 1-4? What about 1 and 2 which have even been mentioned in the bibliography, and have been used by Dr Calder!

To promote a theory, he discredits all Muslim scholarship for three hundred years by (apparently) concealing the evidence at his disposal which is intellectual dishonesty.

To say that the situation in Islam is not now markedly different from that which has been gradually uncovered in the long history of academic inquiry that began with J. Wellhausen’s critical approach to the Old Testament (p.viii) is an absurd statement.

The difference between Islamic literature and rabbinic literature is between day and night. Let me propose a suggestion. Muslim scholars have used something very similar to the law of witness in discussing the historical problem. this is a procedure well established and recognized in courts all over the world. Let us use this method on the New as well as on the Old Testament. If this method were to be used not a single sentence could be proved to be authentic. Even the existence of many big figures would be difficult to prove.

It is not the academic research which leads to the denial of the Muslim victories in Syria and Palestine, or denial of the Jewish settlement in the Arabian Peninsula and denial of all Islamic literature and its validity for three centuries, it is no more than a hidden political agenda which comes in the guise of academic research.

https://islamicsciences.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/shaykh-al-azami-replies-to-some-orientalist-deception-concerning-hadith/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 17, 2015 in Fiqh

 

Bookshops in al-Hijaz

Many people pick up books on their visits to al-Hijaz for Hajj and ‘Umrah. However, some do not know where to go. The following bookshops are my own personal favourites. Feel free to enquire of add more.

Madinah

Abu Dhar al-Ghifari Street just north of the Masjid has a few nice bookshops, such as al-Maghamisi and Dar al-Zaman. These are found opposite Jami’at al-Birr. There are other branches of these two stores. Dar al-Badawi near the Islamic University has a great collection from Dar al-Gharb al-Islami and Dar al-Minhaj.

Makkah

Maktabat al-Asadi in al-Aziziyah just before Umm al-Qura University.

Jeddah

Dar al-Minhaj on Abha Street in Kandara is well worth the visit. Kunuz al-Ma’rifah on Sitteen Street (officially known as King Fahd Street) in al-Sharafiyah. Yahya Masum Street in al-Jami’ah has a dozen bookshops, several of which are very good. My favourite being al-Shanqiti.

 
7 Comments

Posted by on January 13, 2015 in Books

 

al-Bayhaqi’s al-Sunan al-Kubra

al-Sunan al-Kubra by Imam al-Bayhaqi (384-458) remains one of the most extensive and impressive works on the Sunan. It was completed in 432 when the author was 48 and truly is a pinnacle of hadith and fiqh that amazes all who are familiar with it.

Here are just some of the glowing praises from some of the greatest hadith scholars for this masterpiece. Ibn al-Salah, who receieved it from his Khurasani teachers and was key in transmitting it to the Mamluk scholarly elite, said in his Muqaddimah, ‘we know not its like in its field.’ That is, it is unparalleled among the sunan works. Al-Nawawi said in al-Taqrib that one should be devoted to it, as nothing has been written like it, and al-Suyuti, commenting on this statement in Tadrib al-Rawi, agreed. Al-Sakhawi said in Fath al-Mughith that one must not limit oneself from it (by sufficing with the other sunan works of Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, and al-Tirmidhi) due to its comprehensiveness in most of the ahadith al-ahkam. Al-Sakhawi further added that its true rank is only after the Sahihayn of al-Bukhari and Muslim, coming before the sunan of Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, and al-Tirmidhi, which take precedence only by merit of being earlier and thus with shorter chains. Al-Dhahabi said there is nothing like it and considered it to be one of the four masterpieces a scholar cannot do without, alongside al-Muhalla by Ibn Hazm, al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah, and al-Tamhid by Ibn Abd al-Barr. Taj al-Din al-Subki said no other book had been written with such classification, arrangement, and elegance.

Ahmad Shakir said in al-Ba’ith al-Hathith that it is the biggest book in legal hadiths (it has almost 22,000 narrations). It includes most (if not all) of the hadiths found in al-Bukhari and Muslim, as well as many of those in Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, and al-Tirmidhi. The claim that al-Bayhaqi was unaware of al-Nasa’i and al-Tirmidhi is unfounded, because al-Bayhaqi refers to their narrations within his book, as Najm Abd al-Rahman Khalaf demonstrates in his book ‘al-Mawarid’ on al-Bayhaqi’s sources. Khalaf also includes, among hundreds of al-Bayhaqi’s sources: al-Bazzar, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu ‘Awanah, al-Tahawi’s Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar, al-Daraqutni, Musnad Abu Hanifah, Musnad al-Shafi’i, Musnad Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi, Musnad al-Humaydi, Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ishaq b. Rahuwayh, Musnad Ahmad, Musnad al-‘Adani, Musnad al-Darimi, al-Musaddad, Musnad Abu Ya’la al-Mawsili, and many more.

Scott Lucas argues in ‘Perhaps You Only Kissed Her?’ that al-Bayhaqi cemented and sealed the hadith canon, in that what he included was deemed canonical and what he omitted was not, and his choices were honoured by succeeding scholars. He also wrote in his thesis that al-Bayhaqi was the last of the compilers of original hadith books.

One of the best editions is by Dar Hajr and can be found here:

https://archive.org/details/abu_yaala_sunan_bayhaki

When reading the Sunan, it is important to note the following.

When Abu Abdullah, al-Hafiz is mentioned, it refers to al-Hakim al-Naysaburi, the teacher of al-Bayhaqi.

Abu Bakr b. Ishaq refers to Ibn Khuzaymah.

Abu Ahmad refers to Ibn ‘Adi.

When ‘Ali or ‘Ali b. ‘Umar is mentioned it refers to al-Daraqutni.

These names are well-known luminaries of hadith criticism in the era after the compilers of the Six Books. 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 13, 2015 in Hadith/Sunnah

 

Ibn al-Salah on the Seven Authors of Excellent Books

Ibn al-Salah mentions in his famous introduction to the hadith disciplines that seven scholars have authored excellent books. I am mentioning them here whilst adding the books by which they are most renowned:

  • al-Daraqutni (306-385) authored a Sunan and an ‘Ilal
  • al-Hakim al-Naysaburi (321-405) authored al-Mustadrak and Ma’rifat ‘Anwa ‘Ulum al-Hadith
  • ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Azdi (332-409)
  • Abu Nu’aym al-Asfahani (334-430) authored Hilyat al-Awliya
  • Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (368-463) authored al-Tamhid and al-Istidhkar
  • al-Bayhaqi (384-458) authored al-Sunan al-Kubra and Ma’rifat al-Sunan
  • al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (392-463) authored Tarikh al-Baghdad and al-Kifayah
 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 12, 2015 in Hadith/Sunnah