This excerpt is taken from the book compiled by Hakim Ajmal Khan Sahib "Recognize Jamaat-e-Islami".
By: Maulana Muhammad Ismail Gujranwala
After the definition of Sunnah, Maulana (Islahi) said that Sunnah can be established in four ways.
[1] Practical continuity
[2] The practice of the people of Madinah
[3] The actions of the Rightly Guided Caliphs
[4] Individual reports
❀ There is also a difference between mutawatir narration and practical continuity, but there is no need for this discussion at the moment. The authenticity of continuity is established; whatever Sunnah is proven through mutawatir is definitely established. However, how many Sunnahs can be established through continuity has been briefly mentioned before and will be discussed again.
Before discussing hadiths, the matter of the practice of the people of Madinah and the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs arises. These two things will reach us through chains of transmission and understanding, most of which are individual reports, so their status should be lower than that of individual reports. If the probability of individual reports can cause doubts, here too it is only probability. It is not reasonable to be afraid of mursal and sahih individual reports and to argue from the practice of the people of Madinah. The matter of [فر من المطر وقام تحت الميزاب] will be addressed.
❀ Maulana explained the case of the people of Madinah in his own words that Madinah Munawwarah was the center of all the great companions, may Allah be pleased with them. In various matters of life, whatever the companions did, the countries considered it equivalent to Sunnah, because how could the companions be separate from Sunnah at such a time, etc., in brief. And as a result, he says: I consider the Maliki viewpoint on this matter worthy of consideration.
[1] From the books of Imam Malik that have come to my attention, those people do not dare to call the practice of the people of Madinah the Sunnah; they know that the correct chain of narration is the criterion for affirming the Prophetic Sunnah, and citizenship has no role in it. The dangers related to the chain of narration that are expressed nowadays did not exist at that time.
[2] Imam Malik was born around 93 AH and passed away around 179 AH. Generally, the senior Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, had already gone to the conquered lands such as Iraq, Sham, Persia, etc., before 30 AH for religious services. Due to being the capital, Madinah had become filled with foreigners who had nearly made Madinah their residence for worldly purposes. One reason for the martyrdom of Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, and subsequent events and incidents was also the absence of the people of opinion and the senior Companions, may Allah be pleased with them. In these circumstances, the practice of the people of Madinah cannot be given importance; rather, by analogy, it is appropriate not to give importance to the practice of that time.
[3] Whether it is Madinah or Kufa for the whole world, the Sunnah is the criterion for the correctness of practice. Now, it does not seem reasonable to designate any city as the standard for the Sunnah. If the Sunnah is the discovery of proof, then the practice of any city or any individual cannot be the basis for it; one cannot harness a horse behind a carriage.
[4] The senior Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, also had the method that after the authentic Sunnah was found, they would change their practice and would not insist on their own way. Therefore, even if the Companions were present in Madinah at that time, the Sunnah would still be binding upon them.
Imam Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
[کيف أترك الخبر لا قوال اقوام لو عامرتهم لحاججتهم بالحديث]
How can I obey those people? If I were present at that time, I would debate with them based on the trust in the Sunnah.
Reference: Ahkam lil-Amadi: Vol. 2, p. 165
Hafiz Ibn Qayyim said:
[والسنة هى العيار على العمل وليس العمل عياراً على السنة]
The Sunnah is the standard; a person's action is not the standard.
Reference: A'lam: Vol. 2, p. 295
[5] The original authentic source is the Sunnah. Wherever the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, went, they had knowledge and taught the sayings and actions of the Prophet, peace be upon him. It is strange that when these individuals are in Medina, this knowledge is considered authoritative by Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, but when this knowledge goes to Kufa or Sham, its authority is disregarded.
[والجدران والمساکن والبقاع لا تاثير لها في ترجيح الاقوال وانما التأثير لاهلها وسكانها]
What relevance can bricks and buildings have in preference to something? It should be related only to the inhabitants of that place.
Reference: A'lam al-Muwaqqi'in: Vol. 1, p. 295
The knowledge of the Companions and the Prophetic Sunnah, wherever they are, will be authoritative.
[6] Even in Medina, the scholars differed among themselves. Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, himself mentioned these differences in Al-Muwatta. In this case, how can the statements of some people of Medina be authoritative over others, and which statements will Maulana consider as the standard to establish the Sunnah? How will Malik's principle be observed when scholars from both sides are present in Medina?
People of Medina and abandoning the Sunnah:
[7] The people of Medina had abandoned some important Sunnahs, for example:
[1] Folding hands during prayer was not practiced by the Malikis; they prayed with open hands.
[2] Malikis turn their greeting (Salam) only to one side, whereas the majority of Imams hold that Salam should be given on both sides.
[3] Malikis do not prefer to say Bismillah in prayer.
[4] Raising the hands (Raf' al-Yadain) was not a common Sunnah among the Malikis.
[5] Loud recitation (jahr) in the Takbirs was not customary in Medina.
[6] The opening supplication (Dua al-Istiftah) was completely abandoned; Sayyiduna Umar (RA) instructed its loud recitation for a period.
Reference: (Muslim:399)
[7] It is customary among the Malikis to prefer giving the morning Adhan before the time, although the authentic Sunnah is against this; the Adhan is meant to indicate the time.
[8] Funeral prayer in the mosque is correct, but the Malikis do not consider it permissible. Ibn Hazm mentioned dozens of such issues in
Reference: Ahkam Vol. 2
where the practice of the people of Medina was against the Sunnah or the Malikis were not bound by those Sunnahs which were practiced in Medina for a long time. Now there can be only two opinions: either Malik himself did not consider the practice of the people of Medina as proof, or the practice of the people of Medina was not according to the Sunnah.[8] The government’s influence on the actions and customs of countries and cities cannot be denied. In Medina, where the influence of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the Imams of Guidance prevailed, the influence of corrupt and sinful rulers was also present.
Hafiz Ibn Hazm writes that:
"After the era of goodness, Medina experienced the reign of corrupt and immoral rulers such as Amr bin Saeed, Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Tariq, Khalid bin Abdullah Qasri, Abdul Rahman bin Dhahak, and Uthman bin Hayyan Mari, and Medina was also affected by their moral influences and dreadful innovations."
Reference: (الإحكام في أصول الأحكام، لابن حزم: 115/2-116)
During the time of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, Medina was a manifestation of this mixed civilization. It is unclear how far Maulana considers Imam Malik’s viewpoint to be significant.
[9] After the various influences of a century, Maulana bases the practice of the people of Medina on the assumption or suspicion that it must be derived from the instructions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and he fears authentic Sunnah because solitary reports are speculative. Preferring assumptions and suspicions over knowledge is not understandable to us, nor should it be expected from an intelligent person like Maulana. What greater example than [صلت على الاسد و بلت عن النقد] could there be? Maulana so simply stated:
"The Sunnah known through this method was preferred over the knowledge of Sunnah obtained from solitary reports."
An emotional appeal in the name of Medina can be made, but there is no place for it in the world of knowledge and understanding.
[10] The reality is that Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, himself did not give the people of Medina the importance that Maulana is giving them. He is not in favor of rejecting authentic Sunnah on the basis of the practice of the people of Medina. If he had considered this practice so important, he would have immediately accepted the offer of Caliph Harun al-Rashid regarding Muwatta of Malik, may Allah have mercy on him.
[انه شاور مالكاً في ان يعلق الموطأ في الكعبة ويحمل الناس على ما فيه فقال لا تفعل فان اصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم اختلفوا فى الفروع وتفرقوا فى البلدان وكل سنة مضت تأمل وفقك الله يا ابا عبد الله]
"Caliph Harun consulted Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, to make the Muwatta the law of the land and have it displayed in the Kaaba so that people would be compelled to follow it. Imam Malik said, the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, differed in details and spread across different countries; whatever has been transmitted from them is all Sunnah. Harun understood the matter and said, May Allah grant you success in goodness."
Reference: Hujjatullah: Vol.1 p.116, [A'lam al-Muwaqqi'in: Vol.2 p.296], [Miftah al-Sa'adah Tashkibri Zadah 962 AH Vol.2 p.87]
❀ Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, considers the knowledge of all the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, as Sunnah. Whether the knowledge is in Medina or any other city, he does not consider the knowledge of the people of Medina as the basis of Sunnah. The mention of the practice of the people of Medina in Muwatta is for preference and support; the real proof there is also Sunnah, which will be established by the method introduced among the Muhaddithin. The way Maulana has mentioned the practice of the people of Medina, later scholars of Malik or Maulana himself who want a position may accept it, but Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, cannot be held responsible for it. Imam is absolutely not in favor of rejecting authentic Sunnah on the basis of the practice of the people of Medina. This is a kind of advocacy that the client does not like.
[11] According to Imam Ibn Hazm, nearly three hundred scholars from Medina migrated to Kufa and its surroundings and about the same number to Syria, and this migration was purely for religious and missionary needs. How harsh will be the punishment for this sacrifice that their practice is neither a proof nor a basis for Sunnah, while some others who settled in Medina due to religious or worldly needs have their actions considered a criterion for the Prophetic Sunnah. If such patriotism has this status in religion, then what value remains for knowledge and wisdom?
فما حب الديار شققن قلبی
ولكن حب من سکن الديارا
[12] If human actions are made a reason to distrust authentic ahadith and solitary reports merely on the basis of regional pride, then a dangerous door will open for the denial of hadith. [فانها لا تعمى الابصار ولكن تعمى القلوب التى فى الصدور]
[13] It cannot be denied that the non-Medinan companions also possessed the treasures of prophetic knowledge, and among them were some who had knowledge that the people of Medina did not have. In this case, if the hadith is acted upon, then what is the status of the practice of the people of Medina? And if the practice of the people of Medina is preferred, then what crime did the deniers of the Sunnah commit? Did this principle support the doctrine of the authority of hadith or did it endorse the denial of hadith? Only Maulana can decide this.
[14] Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned the practice of the people of Medina in a few places in Al-Muwatta. It is his own manner of preference, not an accusation or proof, and in some places this mention is only an expression of fact. Hafiz Ibn Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, after the proposal of Harun al-Rashid regarding the official status of Al-Muwatta and Imam Malik’s denial, says:
[وهذا يدل على ان عمل اهل المدينة ليس عنده حجة لازمة لجميع الامة وانما هو اختيار منه لما راى عليه العمل ولم يقل قط في مؤطأه ولا غيره لا يجوز العمل بغيره بل يخبر اخباراً مجرداً أن هذا على اهل بلده فأنه وجزاه عن الاسلام خيراً ادعى اجماع اهل المدينة في نيف واربعين مسألة]
"This clearly shows that the practice of the people of Medina is not proof, nor is it necessary for the Ummah to accept it; rather, it is only an expression of a fact. Imam mentioned the consensus of the people of Medina on nearly forty occasions."
Reference: I'lam al-Muniriyyah: Vol. 2, p. 297
The justification of Sunnah formation was probably given by Maulana from some Maliki statement or born out of his own insight; there is no evidence of this from the statement of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him.
Maulana Islahy is not a follower of Ahl al-Hadith but he is accustomed to thinking with an open mind. If he reviews
Reference: I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in Vol. 2
and [Ahkam Ibn Hazm Vol. 2[/ref], he will agree with the writer. ان شاء اللہHafiz Ibn Qayyim describes the background of the practice of the People of Madinah in these words:
[كان بحسب من فيها من المفتين والأمراء والمحتسبين على الاسواق ولم تكن الرعية تخالف هؤلاء فإذا افتى المفتون نفذة الوالى وعمل به المحتسب وصار عملاً فهذا هو الذى لا يلتفت اليه لا عمل رسول الله ﷺ وخلفائه والصحابة فذاك هو السنة فلا يخلط احدهما بالآخر نحن هذا العمل اشد تحكيماً وللعمل بالآخر اذا خالف السنة اشد تركاً وبالله التوفيق]
"After the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the Companions, what was the practice of the people of Madinah? The Mufti's fatwa, the Amir's order, and the Kotwal's accountability — the subjects did not oppose these. But this is certainly not noteworthy; the practice of the Prophet, the Caliphs, and the Companions is Sunnah. We accept their decisions and do not want to do anything else wrong along with it, and we definitely reject any practice that goes against the Sunnah."
Reference: A'lam: Vol. 2, p. 306
❀ After this, Hafiz Ibn Qayyim mentioned such Sunnahs that existed during the time of the Caliphs and the Companions but the rulers abandoned their practice. Hafiz Ibn Hazm mentions this as follows:
"The bad era has passed. After that, the governor of Madinah, Amr ibn Sa'id, and Hajjaj ibn Yusuf became such sinners and oppressors, and Amr ibn Hazm and Umar ibn Abdul Aziz became such righteous and pious ones, and the practice of the people of Madinah was another name for their influence." In brief
Reference: Al-Ahkam: Vol. 2, p. 115
Egypt nowadays is also the cradle of the knowledge of "Dirayah" (understanding). Before proceeding further, listen to the opinion of an Egyptian scholar regarding the practice of the people of Madinah. Sheikh Hasan Ahmad Al-Khatib says:
[قالوا ان عمل اهل المدينة كعمل غيرهم من اهل الامصار فلا فرق بين عملهم وعمل اهل العراق والشام والحجاز وانما العبرة بالسنة فمن كانت معهم فهم اهل العمل المتبع وكيف يكون عمل بعضهم حجة على بعض اذا اختلف علماء المسلمين وقد انتقل اكثر اصحاب رسول الله ﷺ عن المدينة وتفرقوا فى الامصار واكثر علماءهم صاروا الى الكوفة والبصرة والشام وانما الحجة فهى الاصل الذى يجب ان يرجع اليه وعمل مصر اوبلد اصلاً ولا معياراً فى التشريع ملخصاً]
"The majority of the Imams are of the view that the practice of Madinah does not have any special status over other cities. In times of disagreement, following the Sunnah is the main thing; the statement of one scholar is not binding on another. The Companions spread out in different countries, all had knowledge; the main thing is the Sunnah. The practice of any city cannot be considered the basis of interpretation."
Reference: Fiqh al-Islam: p. 172
The majority of the Imams of Islam hold this same opinion regarding the practice of the people of Madinah.
There are many technical discussions regarding Ahad reports, the details of which are found in the subjects of Usul al-Fiqh and Usul al-Hadith. In Ahad reports, there is no fixed number of narrators; all reports other than Mutawatir are Ahad. If there are no indications of certainty in an Ahad report or if there are signs of weakness, such a report will not provide definite knowledge.
There are two types of reports:
[1] Mutawatir [2] Ahad
All the wise agree on the authenticity of mutawatir (mass-transmitted) reports; however, the Samaniyyah and Brahman reject mutawatir as proof. They believe that certain knowledge cannot be obtained from any report. When certainty is not achieved from individuals and singular reports, mutawatir is just a collection of these, so where does certainty come from?
Apart from mutawatir, whether the informants are one or ten, in terminology, it is still considered a solitary report (khabar-e-wahid). Since mutawatir reports are relatively few, all worldly and religious affairs depend on solitary reports. Religious issues have often reached us through solitary reports, and in general worldly information, solitary reports are also operative. If from the government to the common people, trust in solitary reports is abandoned, the entire system of affairs would be ruined and destroyed. The gathering of the number required for mutawatir is practically impossible for any purpose. Similarly, prophets sent delegations, battles were fought based on the information from those delegations, thousands of lives were lost, yet the validity of solitary reports was never questioned.
❀ The Holy Quran states:
[یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡۤا اِنۡ جَآءَکُمۡ فَاسِقٌۢ بِنَبَاٍ فَتَبَیَّنُوۡۤا اَنۡ تُصِیۡبُوۡا قَوۡمًۢا بِجَہَالَۃٍ فَتُصۡبِحُوۡا عَلٰی مَا فَعَلۡتُمۡ نٰدِمِیۡنَ]
When a wicked trader informs you, verify it, lest you regret later.
Reference: (Al-Hujurat:6)
There is no command to reject the report of a wicked person, but emphasis is placed on investigation and verification. The specification of the attribute of wickedness in the verse indicates that for the information of a trustworthy and pious person, such verification is not as necessary. This shows how important solitary reports are in religious and worldly matters.
❀ To avoid the fabrications of hypocrites, the suggestion is not to stop trusting their words but rather to return such reports to the knowledgeable and those skilled in deduction so that they can derive correct conclusions from them.
Considering the need for preaching and admonition, it is stated:
[فَلَوۡ لَا نَفَرَ مِنۡ کُلِّ فِرۡقَۃٍ مِّنۡہُمۡ طَآئِفَۃٌ لِّیَتَفَقَّہُوۡا فِی الدِّیۡنِ وَ لِیُنۡذِرُوۡا قَوۡمَہُمۡ اِذَا رَجَعُوۡۤا اِلَیۡہِمۡ]
That is, from every group, some people should travel to gain knowledge of understanding and return to warn their people.
Reference: (At-Tawbah:122)
The word "group" (taifah) is used for one or more than one, and this will be a solitary report. No numerical restriction is placed on their knowledge and warning that they should not speak until they become one hundred or fifty. It is understood that when they speak, according to the guidance of the Glorious Quran, their instructions will be followed. This is the Quranic clarity regarding the authenticity and trustworthiness of solitary reports. The Prophet ﷺ was not restricted to wait until the number of his audience reached the level of mutawatir before uttering any word. If solitary reports were not legally authentic, some restriction would have been imposed on the Prophet’s instructions. It is clear that solitary reports are legally binding.
Therefore, the Imams of the Sunnah have accepted it as proof after verification and investigation, have given it full importance after considering the circumstances, and have accepted what is established from it as knowledge. Most of the hadith chains consist of solitary reports. Where the hadith scholars felt the need, they investigated and explained, scrutinized the circumstances, established principles for it, and accepted it. This was the only possible approach; beyond the limits of possibility, human choice does not extend. One’s action and knowledge are limited to effort and endeavor, confined to the possible. Neither has God imposed more hardship nor is the person obligated beyond this.
Single Report and Its Discussion and Viewpoint:
The first century of Hijra is the sacred era of Islamic traditions. The scholarly and practical traditions of Sharia were at their peak during this time. What happened then is largely deserving of respect and acceptance from an Islamic perspective. Ibn Hazm states that in the first century of Hijra, single reports were accepted without denial. Ahl al-Sunnah, Kharijites, Shia, and Mu'tazilah all accepted it. After the first century, the theologians of the Mu'tazilah opposed it, contradicting the consensus of the Ummah.
Reference: (Ahkam al-Ahkam: Vol. 1, p.114)
Sheikh Muhammad Ibrahim Anwar al-Yamani (d. 800 AH) states:
[وقد انعقد اجماع المسلمين على وجوب قبول الثقات فيما لا يدخله النظر وليس ذالك بتقليد بل عمل بمقتضى الادلة القاطعة الموجبة قبول خبر الاحاد وهي محررة فى الفن الاصولى ولم يخالف فى هذا الاشرذمة يسيرة وهم متكلموا بغداد من المعتزلة والاجماع منطبق قبلهم وبعدهم على بطلان قولهم]
"There is a consensus among the people of Islam on accepting such reports of trustworthy narrators that have no objection, and this is not blind imitation but requires conclusive evidence, the benefit of which is that accepting solitary reports and using them as proof is necessary. This issue is discussed in its place in the science of principles, and except for the Mu'tazilite theologians of Baghdad, no one has opposed it; rather, there was consensus on it before and there still is.
Reference: Al-Rawd al-Basim: p.32
Objections to solitary reports were generally made by those who were unfamiliar with human psychology and unaware of its limits and possibilities. Even today, the same naturalistic doubts are being raised by those who are accustomed to sitting on the earth and talking about the sky. Accordingly, at various times, voices against solitary reports have come from those circles who were either advocates of innovation themselves
or were somewhat influenced by the people of innovation.
Deniers
Of which hadiths?
When?
Khawarij
Those that were about the virtues of Ahl al-Bayt.
200 AH
Shi'a
Those hadiths about the virtues of the Companions (RA).
200 AH
Mu'tazila and Jahmiyyah
Hadiths of attributes
—
Qazi Isa bin Aban and his followers
Hadiths narrated from non-jurist Companions.
221 AH
Later jurists such as Qazi Abu Zaid Dabbusi, etc.
Hadiths narrated from non-jurist Companions.
221 AH
After that, a small group of later jurists along with the Mu'tazilites and theologians
In both principles and branches, these people disagreed with solitary reports.
After 400 AH
A group impressed by European civilization, Maulvi Chiragh Ali, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, etc.
These people were completely unfamiliar with the science. Their research consisted of a collection of historical hadiths. They accepted what conformed to their nature and rejected what was contrary.
Around 1300 AH
Maulvi Abdullah Chakralvi, Mistri Muhammad Ramzan Gujranwala, Maulvi Hashmat Ali Lahori, Maulvi Rafiuddin Multani
Complete denial of hadiths
After 1300 AH
Maulvi Ahmad Deen Sahab Amritsari, Mr. Ghulam Ahmad Parvez. These gentlemen are influenced by Sir Syed but are ignorant and careless. Maulvi Ahmad Deen considered some frequently practiced actions as Sunnah.
According to them, the Quran is the only guide, and Hadith and the entire religion are a game or at most a political ideology which we have the right to change at any time.
1400 AH
Maulana Shibli (may Allah have mercy on him), Maulana Hamiduddin Farahi, Maulana Abul A'la Maududi, Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi, and the general members of Nadwa except for Hazrat Syed Suleiman Nadvi
These gentlemen do not deny Hadith, but their way of thinking shows contempt and rejection of Hadith, and their method of discourse may open backdoors for denial.
1300 AH, 1400 AH
This table is the result of my personal study; I do not insist on any part of it. I would be grateful if I am informed of my mistake. In my opinion, the movement of denying Hadith has gradually evolved to this point.
After research and verification, the status of Hadith is exactly the same as that of the Noble Quran, and in fact, its denial has exactly the same effect on faith and integrity as the denial of the Noble Quran. When there is a difference in the interpretation of the words of the Noble Quran, there will be no doubt about the certainty of its words, but there will be debate regarding the interpretation of the meaning and its determination. Whoever denies an interpretation that contradicts the correct rules and the sciences of the Sunnah will be called a denier of the Quran. Disagreement over an interpretation does not protect from this ruling. Similarly, those Hadiths that are proven authentic according to the correct rules and the explanations of the Imams of the Sunnah, denying them will be disbelief and equivalent to leaving the community; mere difference in interpretation by those unaware of the reality cannot remove any reality from its position and status.
The Quran, despite the miracle of interpretation, is the Word of Allah and legally binding; similarly, Hadith, after research and verification, is revelation from Allah and, after the Quran, is binding in religion.
Imam Usman bin Saeed Darmi (d. 282 AH) says:
[ان هذا الحديث انما هو دين بعد القرآن نقض الدارمي على بشر المريسي] بے شک یہ حدیث قرآن کے بعد دین ہی ہے۔ [نقض الدارمي على المريسي: ص137]
Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
[لا ريب ان مجرد خبر الواحد الذى لا دليل على صدقه لا يفيد العلم]
If the signs of truthfulness are not present in a solitary report, then knowledge cannot be derived from it.
Reference: Al-Radd 'ala al-Mantiqiyyin: p.38
Shah Waliullah, may Allah have mercy on him, classified the books of Hadith into five categories, and in conclusion said:
[اما الطبقة الاولى والثانيه فعليها اعتماد المحدثين وحوم حماها مرتعهم ومسرحهم الخ]
The Imams of Hadith place their trust in the first and second categories; this is the central point of their trust. The third category, which includes Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Tahawi, Musannif Ibn Abi Shaybah, and Al-Tabarani, etc., can only be benefited from by experts in the field; it is not for the use and benefit of the general public. The remaining categories are used as evidence by the innovators, but the Ahl al-Hadith do not trust them.
Reference: Hujjatullah: Vol. 1 p.108
Because in these categories the signs of truthfulness are absent, their chains of narration are flawed, and their narrators are generally not found in the books of Rijal.
Signs of Truthfulness:
If there are indications of authenticity regarding individual reports, for example, if it has been verified, accepted by the Ummah, the author has committed to its authenticity, the Ummah has acknowledged the claim as correct, scholars have served those books, commentaries have been written, lexicons have been explained, narrators have been scrutinized, introductions and marginal notes have been written, in short, it has been viewed from the perspective of trust, or it has been transmitted from one individual to another and meets the conditions of authenticity, or the Ummah has practically accepted it, and the reliability of the narrators is known, then certainty will also be obtained from it and acting upon it will also be obligatory.
Allama Amdi has written extensively about solitary reports, but he has mentioned the approach of Ahl al-Zahir and Ahl al-Hadith very briefly. Both approaches are detailed in Al-Ahkam fi Usul al-Ahkam by Ibn Hazm and Sawaiq Mursalah ala al-Jahmiyyah wal-Mu'atilah. From this, the approach of Ahl al-Hadith becomes completely clear.
[القسم الثاني من الاخبار ما نقله الواحد من الواحد فهذا اذا تصل برواية العدول الى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وجب العمل به ووجب العلم بصحته]
When one narrator transmits from another with continuity and they are just, then acting upon it is also obligatory and certainty in its authenticity is also necessary.
Reference: Al-Ahkam: Vol. 1, p. 108
It is written in another place:
[فصح بهذا اجماع الامة كلها على قبول خبر الواحد الثقة عن النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم]
There is consensus of the entire Ummah on the acceptance of solitary (ahad) reports.
Reference: Ahkam: Vol 1, p.114
Reference: Then in Vol 1, p.118:
[وقد ثبت عن ابى حنيفة ومالك والشافعى واحمد وداؤد وجوب القول بخبر الواحد وهذا حجة على من قلد احدهم فى وجوب القول بخبر الواحد]
The four Imams and Dawood Zahiri all agree on the acceptance of solitary reports, and this is a proof for following them.
Later Jurists:
After mentioning the consensus of the early Imams, Ibn Hazm refers to the later jurists who, influenced by the Mu'tazila and theologians, began to view solitary reports (khabar al-wahid) with suspicion and considered the term "probable" [The Imams of Usul have classified khabar al-wahid as probable (zanni); in the terminology of hadith scholars, this means that the level of knowledge is less than that obtained from mutawatir reports. This "probable" is not the same as conjecture or doubt, as misunderstood by the hadith deniers] to be beyond the limits of knowledge. The Imam emphasized two principles.
[1] He states that the religion is perfect, as is evident from the verse [الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ], and that Allah has taken the responsibility of its preservation, which is clear from [إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ]. If, according to the later jurists, doubts and conjectures dominate the perfect religion and truth and falsehood become so mixed that distinction becomes impossible, then how is the promise of preservation fulfilled? Because the word "mention" applies to both the Book of Allah and the Sunnah. If the opinion of the later jurists is accepted, then:
[وهٰذا انسلاخ من الإسلام، وهدم للدين، وتشكيك في الشرائع]
After this belief, a person would be completely outside the religion, and the entire structure of religion would be reduced to dust.
Reference: Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam by Ibn Hazm: 1/123
[2] It is known that all doubts in khabar al-wahid arise due to the chain of narration. When the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) heard from the Prophet (peace be upon him), at that time there was neither a chain nor any doubt; thus, Allah's protection ended there. For the future, Allah did not make any arrangement, and instead, liars and deceivers prevailed over the religion. Since this is not the case, it is necessary that the religion will be preserved until the Day of Judgment, and this will be through the preservation of ahadith.
[فقد ثبت يقيناً ان خبر الواحد العدل عن مثله مبلغاً عن مثله الى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مقطوع به موجب للعمل والعلم معاً]
Therefore, it is conclusively proven that a report transmitted by a just narrator from another just narrator, which reaches the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, is absolutely true, and it simultaneously makes both action and knowledge obligatory.
Reference: Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam by Ibn Hazm: 1/124
It is certainly proven that acting upon a sahih muttasil hadith is obligatory and its authenticity is also certain.
According to Ahl al-Hadith, when there are indications of truthfulness in a solitary report, meaning the reliability and continuity of the hadith and other indications are present, it will be beneficial for knowledge.
[1] [وعند بعض اهل الحديث يوجب العلم لانه يوجب العمل ولا عمل الاعن علم]
Action is a branch of knowledge; when there is no knowledge, how can there be action? Therefore, the belief of Ahl al-Hadith is that knowledge and certainty are obtained from a solitary report.
Reference: Tanweeh: p.304
[2] Al-Amidi states: [والمختار حصول العلم بخبرہ اذا احتفت به القرائن وتمينع ذلك عادة دون القرائن]
The chosen belief is that if indications are present, knowledge will be obtained; otherwise, it is generally prohibited.
Reference: Al-Ahkam lil-Amidi: vol.2 p.50
[3] [قال بعض اهل الحديث يوجب علم اليقين لما ذكرنا أنه أوجب العمل ولا عمل من غير علم وقد ورد الاحاد فى احكام الآخرة مثل عذاب القبر وروية الله تعالى بالابصار ولا حظ لذلك الا العلم]
Some Ahl al-Hadith have said that certain knowledge is obtained from a solitary report because when an action is obligatory, how can it be performed without knowledge? And whatever has been reported in solitary narrations regarding the punishment of the Hereafter, the punishment of the grave, and the vision of Allah Almighty, its purpose is knowledge and belief.
Reference: Usool Bazdawi: p.691 vol.2
❀ Some scholars believe that reasoning from solitary reports is correct in actions, but not correct in principles and beliefs. Ahl al-Hadith consider solitary reports as proof in both actions and beliefs.
[4] [ذهب أكثر أهل الحديث إلى أن الأخبار التى حكم أهل الصنعة بصحتها توجب علم اليقين بطريق الضرورة، وهو مذهب أحمد بن حنبل]
The belief of Ahl al-Hadith and Imam Ahmad is that certain knowledge is obtained from authentic hadiths.
Reference: Kashf al-Asrar: 2/691
[5] Ibn Qayyim states: "Those who deny knowledge from solitary reports are influenced by the Mu'tazila and innovated sects. Some jurists and imams of principles are also influenced by them, but among the Salaf of the Ummah, there is no predecessor for this. The Imams of the Sunnah: Imam Shafi'i, Imam Malik, Imam Ahmad, Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on them, and their students, Imam Dawud, Imam Ibn Hazm, Husayn bin Ali Karabisi, etc., have said that certain knowledge is obtained from solitary reports. Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, was once told about a person who said that action is obligatory from a solitary report but knowledge is not obtained. The Imam disliked this and said: I do not know what this nonsense is?
Reference: Sawa'iq: 2/362
From this, it is clear that the four Imams and the early scholars are with Ahl al-Hadith on this issue. Suspicion about solitary reports arose when theologians and philosophers attacked Islamic beliefs, and later jurists were influenced by this.
The issue of knowledge and certainty is largely intuitive. In this matter, not only the number but also the qualities of the narrators are effective. Even in the absence of piety and righteousness, when we hear news from a moral and religious person, we feel much more satisfaction in our hearts. Even if there are many common or non-religious people, that certainty does not arise in the heart. The number of narrators, their qualities, and other indications increase knowledge and certainty. It is surprising that the leadership of Jamaat-e-Islami, like common sects, has started treating solitary reports as speculative, whereas the way of thinking of religious groups should be different from that of heretical sects. It is surprising that a group whose call is the establishment of religion compares the narrators of hadith with the narrators of common news.
They get influenced by the fallacy of Mu'tazila and Jahmiyyah and then express it at a time when the people of innovation in the country are raising an uproar against hadith and Sunnah. Whereas only the people of integrity understand the intuitive state of the people of integrity; it is difficult for the people of innovation to understand it. The Imams of Hadith were well aware of this intuition and consciousness; keeping in mind the qualities of narrators and the effects of supporting and opposing indications, they said:
❀ [والآحاد في هذا الباب قد تكون ظنونا بشروطها فاذا قويت صارت علوماً فإذا ضعفت صارت اوهاماً وخیالات فاسدة]
Solitary reports are sometimes speculative, sometimes synonymous with knowledge and certainty, and sometimes delusions and corrupt thoughts.
Reference: Ibn Taymiyyah, cited in Sawāʾiq: Vol. 2, pp. 3-4
Acceptance by Consensus:
❀ The hadith also reaches the level of certainty through the acceptance and practice of the Ummah. The hadiths such as "Actions are judged by intentions," the hadith of 'Zawq 'Ailah,' Zakat al-Fitr, the prohibition of marriage with paternal and maternal aunts, the hadith on the prohibition of breastfeeding being like kinship, the specification of the ten promised Paradise, etc., have been practically accepted by the Ummah. Ibn Taymiyyah states that certainty is obtained from them as if they were mutawatir.
[اما السلف فلم يكن بينهم في ذالك نزاع]
There was no dispute about this among the Salaf.
Reference: Mukhtasar al-Sawa'iq al-Mursalah by Ibn al-Qayyim: 2/373
The Ummah is unanimous on the authenticity of the hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim, and they have attained the status of acceptance by consensus.
Ibn al-Salah states:
[لاتفاق الامة على تلقي ما اتفقا عليه بالقبول وهذا القسم جميعه مقطوع بصحته والعلم اليقينى النظرى واقع به]
The Ummah has unanimously accepted the agreed-upon narrations of the Sahihayn, and the authenticity of these hadiths is definitive. From this, theoretical and certain knowledge is obtained.
Reference: Ibn al-Salah: p.12
We do not at all trouble Maulana Islahy to consider the Imams of Hadith as infallible, but the infallibility of the Ummah should be considered. The acceptance of the Ummah is, according to the Imams of Hadith and the Ahl al-Hadith, a very strong indication. There is a very fine and extensive discussion in the studies of the Ahl al-Hadith regarding acceptance by approval and the certainty derived from the hadiths of the Sahihayn, which is being overlooked due to its length. That discussion will be very useful for researchers.
❀ Among the later scholars, Maulana Syed Anwar Shah, may Allah have mercy on him, was unique in his time and breadth of knowledge. In the commentary on Bukhari, he states:
[حاصله انه يفيد القطع اذا حتف بالقرائن كخبر الصحيحين على الصحيح بيداتہ يكون نظرياً ونسب الى احمد ان اخبار الاحاد تفيد القطع مطلقاً]
The conclusion is that if there are indications in a solitary report, then theoretical and certain knowledge will be obtained from it. It is narrated from Imam Ahmad that certainty will be gained from it.
Reference: Fayz Anbahi: vol.4 p.506
In fact, this difference depends on the strength and weakness of the indications.
Background of this difference:
Man is a slave to his environment. The Mu'tazila, Imams of Kalam, and other heretical groups were generally associated with royal courts. The Abbasid court was famous for these showmen. Everything there was about victory, defeat, and bureaucratic power. In such circumstances, eloquence and falsehood were considered permissible to gain honor in the court. At such times, partisanship is inevitable and avoiding lies is impossible. Individuals lie, groups misrepresent; in such an environment, who would trust a solitary report and why? In this matter, the Mu'tazila and the theologians are helpless.
The Independence of the Imams of Hadith:
The environment of the Imams of Hadith was completely different from this, free from courts, hating kings, everything for the pleasure of Allah and the service of religion.
Ibn Qayyim said:
[كل احد يعلمان اهل الحديث اصدق اهل الطوايف كما قال ابن المبارك وجدت الدين لاهل الحديث والكلام للمعتزلة والكذب للرافضة والحيل لاهل الراى]
Everyone knows that the Ahl al-Hadith are very truthful. Ibn Mubarak, may Allah have mercy on him, said, "The religion is with the Ahl al-Hadith, fabrications are with the Mu'tazila, lies are the habit of the Rafidah, and the people of opinion are accustomed to tricks."
Reference: Mukhtasar al-Sawa'iq al-Mursalah 'ala al-Jahmiyyah wal-Mu'attila by Ibn al-Qayyim: 2/550
In this environment, where there is no greed, why would anyone lie and who would lie? Those who consider these two groups equal will find it difficult to reconcile this difference, and those who understand this background will have no difficulty in understanding and applying it. A person's psychology adapts to the environment in which he lives. [ولنعم ما قيل ع عن المرء لا تسئل وسل عن قرينه]
Under this heading
Reference: Tarjuman al-Qur'an: from page 140 to 145
, Maulana Islahy, such a dignified and thoughtful writer, again turned his pen towards satirical praises. If Maulana had not adopted this style, we would have paid even more attention to his instructions and certainly reflected on our faults and shortcomings. The irritation in Maulana's mind, which was evident from the tone of the newspapers, was attempted to be avenged on the Jamaat and sect. [عفا اللہ عنا وعنہ]Exaggeration and Distortion in the Sources:
As far as we know our own circumstances, despite acknowledging our weaknesses, our mind, praise be to Allah, is completely clear; there is neither exaggeration for any source nor bias. However, respect for the achievements of our predecessors is certainly present in the mind. Whether you call it bias or exaggeration, you and your colleagues and superiors are free to do so. Here there is neither "destruction" nor "defamation" nor "one-sidedness." We accept all sources according to their order, but certainly keep the objectives in mind. This is why in our tradition, understanding, insight, and analogy are fully respected in their place, but we do not like to reject the Sunnah of the authentic collections, even if they are solitary (ahad) narrations, through manipulation of words and tricks. The actions of narrators, whether they are in Medina, Khorasan, Kufa, or Sham, cannot be equated with the authentic Sunnah. We do not value the misconception that a person’s actions are Sunnah just because he resides in Medina; rather, the authentic Sunnah can be rejected on this basis. Praise be to Allah, we respect ranks, and this respect existed long before your advice. The complaint that Shah Sahib and Khattabi made regarding the compilation of hadith is correct in its place. The way Sayuti, Haithami, Ibn Abi Dunya, Tabarani, Daylami, etc., compiled hadith has indeed harmed the methodology of Ahl al-Hadith and the way of the Salaf. Innovators use these collections without investigation for argumentation, but even in this, there is no fanaticism for the art; no suspicion of bias can be held against Sayuti, Haithami, etc. The method of compilation is a flaw; these gentlemen themselves do not claim that everything collected in these compilations is authentic and actionable. Maulana, please be assured that this defect does not exist among us.
There are two or three elders with you who have studied with Ahl al-Hadith; ask them whether before joining Jamaat-e-Islami they ever accepted hadith blindly without investigation or considered fabricated and altered narrations as actionable? If Jamaati fanaticism has not overwhelmed their minds, they will tell you that, praise be to Allah, such fraud does not exist among Ahl al-Hadith; rather, benefiting from the thoughts of the Imams of Jarh and Ta'dil (criticism and accreditation) and critical analysis is the hallmark here.
First of all, we do not believe in contradiction between the Quran and Hadith, or between the Quran and sound reason, or between Hadith and sound reason. But if apparently a contradiction is felt somewhere, then as a principle, certainly the status of Hadith should be after the Noble Quran. All forms of application, preference, and suspension exist in the principles of Hadith.[کما فصل في موضعه]
Yes, at the time of reasoning and deriving issues, Hadith is revelation in our view, and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was given this knowledge just like the Quran. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) conveyed the words of the Quran to us and the meaning of the Hadith, and we believe that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) acted with full trustworthiness and true honesty in this matter. The same was the case with the Companions; we have full confidence in their knowledge and honesty.
[عن حسان ابن عطية كان جبريل ينزل بالقرآن والسنة ويعلمه اياها كما يعلمه القرآن]
Gabriel used to descend with both the Quran and Sunnah, teaching the Prophet (peace be upon him) the Sunnah just like the Quran.
Reference: Sawa'iq: p.340 vol.2, Shatibi vol.4, Jami' Bayan al-'Ilm Ibn Abd al-Barr
In this regard, we do not believe in differentiation in revelation. Both the Quran and Hadith are sources and simultaneous sources. Accordingly, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said: [اوتیت القرآن ومثله معه]
We have full faith in the independent status that Sunnah holds in prayer, sanctity, and some other matters. At this point, your statement is quite brief:
"The original place of these (hadith) in religion is after the Quran, not before it or equal to it. If someone reverses this order and places them before or equal to the Quran, he will fall into the same exaggeration in which the apparentists fell, who made every hadith a mutawatir hadith."
Please explain this riddle; in our view, there is no such person "who considers hadith everything, ignoring the Quran and Ijtihad."
Reference: Tarjuman: p.141
We have neither seen anyone who considers hadith superior to the Quran in case of contradiction or in terms of proof method, nor anyone who considers every hadith mutawatir. The books of Ibn Hazm are viewed by scholars as belonging to the apparentists. "Al-Muhalla" is out of print, "Al-Ahkam" is available in the market, "Jamhara al-Ansab" is found. We find the authenticity of such claims doubtful. The poor apparentists are openly slandered. It would have been better if such words had not come from the pen of a dignified person like Maulana. He accepts all sources except for analogy.
The ultimate point is that showing affiliation with a particular way of thinking through certain names and connection with a sect—for example, if a person joins Jamaat-e-Islami, we can understand that this person considers Maulana Maududi’s leadership better than the current leadership, trusts him more; it does not mean that he prefers Maulana Maududi over the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), or the Imams. Regarding an Ahl al-Hadith person, it is understood that he prefers the methodology of the Imams of Hadith over the Hanafi or Shafi’i way of thinking. In practical life, he trusts the Imams of Hadith, but why suspect that he considers only hadith as proof and ignores the Quran and Ijtihad? In these pages, Maulana’s method of discussion is very painful and disgusting; we complain with seriousness and dignity why he left Maulana’s company.
Second Condition:
In the second condition of benefit, Maulana said, "Do not consider anyone infallible after the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him." O Allah! Who said this? When was it said? How was it said? The fact is only this much: the Imams of Hadith have worked for centuries on the criticism of Hadith, making some rational, some linguistic, and customary judgments regarding the authenticity, weakness, excellence, transmission, discontinuity, rarity, and acceptance of Hadith. These judgments have been accepted by the scholars for centuries. We want that their opposition should not be made without reason; if there is disagreement, it should be done with evidence, in the light of the decisions of the experts. This is not called infallibility; there is no room for such suspicion in the Imams of Hadith and the Ahl al-Hadith school. With full confidence and full responsibility, it is requested that after the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, no one should be considered infallible. The hadith scholars are also human, and the leadership of Jamaat-e-Islami is also human. However, the disagreement is with the bias that a group, out of their devotion, considers one of their elders or leaders as a connoisseur of God's temperament or considers him a connoisseur of the Prophet's temperament, and then gives him the authority to accept or reject any Hadith contrary to the principles of the hadith scholars, or some scholar-leader claims without reason regarding any fabricated, suspended, or disconnected Hadith that he has "seen a diamond in it." This ridiculous position is certainly unpleasant to us. We ان شاء اللہ will resist it to the utmost and try to protect the Sunnah of the Prophet, peace be upon him, from these baseless attacks.
We know, whether a diamond is found or just a piece of it, only those jewelers know who live and breathe Sunnah, whose daily occupation is Sunnah, and temperament recognition is their part, and in principle, they have this right. Maulana says that the biased ones are those who respect rules and principles or those gentlemen who become jewelers for free or whose friends make them connoisseurs of the Prophet's temperament.
[ان هى الا اسماء سميتموها أنتم اباءكم ما انزل الله بها من سلطان]
This is a matter of valuing the art and respecting the skill; there is no question of infallibility in it. This interpretation is wrong and entirely a product of a vindictive spirit. At this point, Maulana has raised doubts about the experts, created possibilities against Akhbar-e-Ahad, and pointed out misunderstandings in human understanding. After considering this possible, it is submitted that those who, after centuries, will criticize these errors and misunderstandings and detect them, can Maulana and his associates claim infallibility regarding them? Can they be certain that there is no mistake in those criticisms? Surely, you will not say so, so please be told that you clash your conjecture with centuries of conjecture and reach a conjectural conclusion, calling it "a piece of diamond" or "connoisseurship of the Prophet's temperament." And if the timely decisions of the experts and the results of centuries of effort are trusted, in your terminology, that is a claim of infallibility. [مالكم كيف تحكمون]
To believe in the criticism and arguments of the earlier Imams as infallibility and to make a conjectural decision centuries later in the light of one's own knowledge against these legal decisions is called a piece of diamond. These audacities open the way for suspicion for those who criticize you.
فاحفظ و قيت فتحت قدمك هوة
كم قد هوى فيها من الانسان
The Need of the Time:
At a time when there is a storm in irreligious circles against Hadith and Sunnah, it is not appropriate to make such weak and baseless statements. This is not the time for divisive speeches or to evade debate in this manner; such avoidance is not prudent at this time. This apologetic attitude and guiding towards backdoors neither serves Hadith nor supports Sunnah. Recently, when some inappropriate speeches of Maulana Maududi caused some uproar in the newspapers, some of our "Ahl-e-Hadith" friends, who have now joined Jamaat-e-Islami, could not openly support Maulana’s ideology out of religious duty, but they covered it up by saying, "Earlier scholars also used to say such things."
Some people started searching for references to "temperament analysis," whereas it would have been appropriate for the moderate school of thought to have stopped Maulana from such writings. Respect for Jamaat affiliations is certainly due, but respect for truth and support for Sunnah is the most urgent need of the time, which should not be ignored under any circumstances. The only way for the establishment of an Islamic system in the world is to defend the Sunnah by looking the enemy in the eye against every front from which it is attacked. An apologetic attitude in the name of fairness and broad-mindedness is completely against the need of the time. Maulana himself should also protect himself from such sycophants whose only concern is that their loyalty might be questioned.
The Infallibility of the Narrators:
The narrators are neither infallible nor has anyone ever claimed their infallibility, nor is it possible. However, overall, there is a prevailing assumption of infallibility regarding the science of Hadith. Just as Allah Almighty granted the ability to preserve the Quran, meaning not every memorizer is infallible, but Allah enabled them to safeguard the Quran, similarly, Allah has granted the preservers of Hadith the ability to protect it. Not every individual in the consensus of the Ummah is infallible, but collectively, the mujtahids in the consensus attain the status of infallibility.
The same applies to acceptance by transmission. If Hadith is religion, then the responsibility of its preservation should belong to Allah Almighty. This preservation has been achieved through the knowledge of the preservers of Hadith, and therefore, they certainly share in collective preservation and collective infallibility. We firmly believe that if anything has been lost from it, it was not necessary, and that which was necessary to preserve, Allah Almighty granted the Imams of Hadith the ability to safeguard it. [ذالك فضل الله يوتيه من يشاء والله ذو الفضل العظيم]
In this topic, Maulana stated that criticism is not necessary for every hadith. "The need for criticism arises where a hadith appears that immediately offends the nature, seems contrary to the fundamentals of religion and the well-known principles of Shariah, and which common reason initially rejects," etc. In this context, Maulana mentioned three hadiths as examples (the narration of Prophet Ibrahim, peace be upon him, lying three times, the narration of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, reciting the words تلك الغرانيق العلی along with the verses of the Quran, or the narration of Prophet Musa, peace be upon him, slapping the Angel of Death).
What Maulana said is somewhat appropriate, but Maulana mentions the poor Ahl al-Zahir (literalists) at every disliked point, perhaps because this way of thinking has no supporter in our school of thought. As far as the books of Ahl al-Zahir are concerned, they do not contain what Maulana attributes to them. Ahl al-Zahir have made some mistakes at certain points, but they are not as misguided as appears from Maulana's statement. Two prominent figures of the Zahiri school of thought are generally well-known: Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi and Imam Dawud al-Zahiri. These people do not consider Qiyas (analogical reasoning) as a legal proof, but their status in hadith is far higher than such claimants of knowledge and reason. Caution is appropriate regarding the style of criticism that Maulana Islah has adopted.
Three Hadiths:
Regarding the three hadiths about which Maulana stated that common sense refuses to accept them, it would have been more appropriate for Maulana, instead of citing such examples, to consult with his colleagues and publish a collection containing all the hadiths that trouble Maulana’s disposition or are rejected by common sense, so that less intelligent people could estimate the extent of such hadiths and whose intellects find these hadiths troubling. Perhaps if someone understood something, they could have presented it to you. Whenever a conflict between reason and hadith has been attempted, scholars have created a form of reconciliation and peace has been established. Books like *I‘lam al-Mawqi‘in*, *Ta’wil Mukhtalif al-Hadith*, or *Mushkil al-Athar* were written in light of such doubts and proved quite successful in their time.
A brief remark seems appropriate regarding the hadiths Maulana mentioned as examples. The Hadith of the Gharaaniq is unanimously considered unreliable by hadith scholars according to the principles of hadith criticism, and the words on which the hadith scholars have relied neither trouble the disposition nor are rejected by common sense. The narration of the accusations (ma‘arid) of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) is frequently reported in hadith, and its chain of transmission is authentic according to hadith principles. None of the hadith scholars have technically objected to it.
(a) It is surprising that none of the hadith scholars found this hadith troubling to their disposition nor did their “common sense” reject it.
(b) Earlier jurists and scholars of Sunnah also did not express any doubt about it. Probably Imam Razi was the first person on whom this hadith weighed heavily, and he tried to deny it in veiled terms, but the Imam did not consider that many other narrations are reported from these narrators. The defect on which it would be rejected would also affect the other hadiths, and rejecting it is not easy in terms of consequences.
(c) Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276 AH) mentioned the doubts of Ibrahim ibn Sayyar Nizam, a Mu‘tazili. Nizam said that the senior companions (Huthaifah ibn al-Yaman) lied to Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). Ibn Qutaybah says that the criticism is valid and sometimes lying is permitted. In this context, they also mentioned the accusations of Sayyiduna Ibrahim (peace be upon him), which shows that even a zealous Mu‘tazili like Nizam had no objection to this hadith at that time nor did it trouble his intellect.
Reference: Ta’wil Mukhtalif al-Hadith: pp. 42-53
(d) The Mu‘tazilah and theologians worshipped reason in matters of principles and beliefs, but in discussions of the attributes of the Creator, the Sunnah weighed heavily on their intellects. In jurisprudential details, the pressure on their intellects lessened. They believed these issues were also speculative and that reasoning with speculative evidence was correct. Today’s rationalists neither forgive hadith in principles nor in jurisprudential details. This rejection or discomfort of intellects is actually a matter of the times.
(e) Jurists, hadith scholars, and commentators are almost unanimous that Sayyiduna Ibrahim (peace be upon him) did not lie. The Quran and Sunnah explicitly testify that what Sayyiduna Ibrahim said was said as an allusion and innuendo, and this mode of speech is the essence of literature. Religious, political, and business classes all openly use it.
Hafiz Ibn Qayyim has mentioned this with such brevity and seriousness that it provides reassurance for the people of research.
"فان قيل كيف سماها ابراهيم كذبات وهي تورية و تعريض صحيح۔۔۔ وقد فتح الله الكريم بالجواب عنه۔ فنقول الكلام له نسبتان، نسبة الى المتكلم وقصده وارادته ونسبة الى السامع وافهام المتكلم اياه مضمونه۔ فاذا اخبر المتكلم بخبر مطابق للواقع وقصد افهام المخاطب اياه صدق بالنسبتين فان المتكلم ان قصد الواقع وقصد افهام المخاطب فهو من الجهتين وإن قصد خلاف الواقع وقصد مع ذالك افهام المخاطب خلاف ما قصد بل معنى ثالثا لا هو الواقع ولا هو المراد فهو كذب من الجهتين بالنسبتين معاً۔ وان قصد و معنى مطابقاً صحيحاً وقصد مع ذالك النعمية على المخاطب وافهامه خلاف ما قصده فهو صدق بالنسبة الى قصده كذب بالنسبة الى افهامه ومن هذا الباب التورية والمعاريض۔ وبهذا اطلق عليها ابراهيم الخليل عليه السلام اسم الكذب مع انه الصادق في خبره ولم يخبر الا صدقا فتأمل الخ]
The Imam means that in distinguishing truth and falsehood, the essence of the matter and the speaker's intention and purpose also play a role. In this regard, there will be three cases. The speaker says what is correct and according to reality and wants the addressee to understand it; this is the actual truth. It is true in both respects (reality and intention). If the speaker says something contrary to reality and does not want to inform the addressee of his purpose but creates a third case, it will be neither correct nor the speaker's meaning and intention; it will be false in both respects. If the speaker speaks correctly and according to the essence of the matter but wants to keep the addressee in the dark and does not reveal his purpose to him, it is called allusion and equivocation. This is truth from the speaker's perspective and falsehood from the understanding perspective. That is why Sayyiduna Ibrahim (peace be upon him) called it falsehood, even though what Sayyiduna Ibrahim (peace be upon him) said was actually true. This was the appropriate way to avoid public disgrace.
Reference: Miftah Dar as-Sa'adah: p.39 vol.2
It will not be inappropriate here if the precious research of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, the teacher of Hafiz Ibn Qayyim, regarding "truth and falsehood of news" is also presented.
Reference: Al-Jawab as-Sahih liman Badal Din al-Masih: p.288 vol.4
He says: [والخبر تارة يكون مطابقاً لمخبره كالصدق المعلوم انه صدق وتارة لا يكون مطابقاً لمخبره كالكذب المعلوم انه كذب وقد تكون المطابقة في عناية المتكلم وقد يكون في افهام المخاطب واذا كان اللفظ مطابقاً لما عناه المتكلم ولم يطابق افهام المخاطب فهذا ايضا قد يسمى كذباً وقد لا يسمى ومنه المعاريض لكن يباح للحاجة۔ ملخصاً]
(And) some scholars have taken another path; they believe that lying is not forbidden in every case. Sometimes the necessity of the Shariah permits it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
[ليس الكاذب الذي يصلح بين الناس]
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari: 2692
In the hadiths, some benefits have been explicitly mentioned. Ibn Hazm's inclination in Al-Fadl is also in this direction. Hasan Ahmad al-Khatib has mentioned this school of thought among the new people.
Reference: Fiqh al-Islam: p.230
[ومن ذالك اباحتهم الكذاب اذا ترتب على الصدق مفسدة عظيمة وقد فصل الحمو في الاشياء الكلام فى ذالك فقال ما خلاصته ان الكذاب يجوز فى ثلثه مواضع فى الاصلاح بين الناس وفي الحرب وعلى الزوجة لاصلاحها الخ ويراد بذالك استعمال المعاريض لا الكذاب الصريح ونقل ان الكذاب يباح لاحياء حق الخ]
Whether someone understands it or not, there are times in life when a person cannot express complete truthfulness. If he insists on expressing it, further difficulties may arise in his path, which may harm religion and integrity, which must be preserved. Using this permission for personal purposes is indeed a sin, but for religious and national necessities, this allowance is indispensable.
[اذا بتلى احد كم ببليتين فليختر اهونها] also operates on this principle.
❀ The softest word that can be used for what is written on the first page of "Tulu-e-Islam" is "allusions," but since their purpose is destruction of religion rather than support, which they did not dare to say openly, they adopted the language of praise. Kausar Niazi came to Gujranwala, there was a disturbance at the gathering, the gathering barely took place, and Tasneem published a report on it. The people of Gujranwala are aware of its reality. It is appropriate to allow allusion on such occasions; otherwise, calling Tasneem a liar would be difficult for us.
(Z) The path of allusions is such a necessity of life that it is very difficult to avoid it. Consider your own article; while answering question 2, you apologized that "Jamaat-e-Islami has not yet been able to provide any significant service to the Sunnah." The work of the Jamaat would have progressed much further, but those who consider themselves contractors of the service of Hadith became worried that if the Jamaat took over this work, then by what name would they gather some people around themselves.
Maulana's Reprimand:
Maulana! Regardless of whether this tone of sarcasm and criticism is appropriate for such a dignified and learned person or not, you yourself know, and we also know, that there is no contractor for the service of Hadith in this country. What you want to hide from the addressee are the important and prominent services that the Jamaat Ahl-e-Hadith has shown in the publication of the Book and Sunnah. Through lessons, schools, and printing presses, millions of people have benefited from the blessings of the Quran and Hadith.
It is also a fact that Jamaat-e-Islami has done nothing but rhetoric in this path, but you do not like to show this to the questioner. Instead, to keep him in the dark, you have chosen the sarcasm of "contractor." I would call it sarcasm. But if you have courage, then admit like Sayyiduna Ibrahim (peace be upon him) that you have lied. Please refrain from making excuses with frivolous sarcasm and do not dare to create backdoors for the denial of Hadith. When such learned elders see you using these tricks in your following, their boldness will increase even more.
A living army, ten thousand birds on a skewer
Your stance in the movement of the Finality of Prophethood was beyond the reach of "common sense," and all your statements were of this nature. People call them lies and deception. It is understood that you were compelled to make these sarcastic statements to protect your group and hide your slips in front of the public.
When the demands of "common sense" begin to clash with the intellect of the masses, the path of sarcasm should remain open to avoid difficulties. If it is stopped by imaginary mysticism and conceptual asceticism, a void will appear in life that will be impossible to fill.
During the journey of migration, Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) made this sarcastic remark about the Prophet (peace be upon him) "رجل يهديني السبيل", demonstrating the utmost wisdom and adding a useful element to language and literature. You people are strange; on one hand, you want people to think with an open mind. When the time comes to think, you are attacked by artificial mysticism, take refuge in the lap of common sense, and start mocking others.
(H) My personal experience regarding the objections to Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) is that as long as childhood dominated and intellect was incomplete, hearing the word "lie" caused concern. There were debates with teachers and companions. Since stepping into the life of experience, action has removed all doubts; I found sarcasm and innuendo enveloped in the environment of the practical world. The Prophets used it when necessary, and the righteous felt the need for it. Therefore, our "common sense" does not find any objection to this hadith; rather, it strengthens the belief in the completion of religion that it also contains guidance for this perspective.
The Slap of Prophet Musa (Moses) عليه السلام:
Before presenting something on this topic, it is requested to Maulana and researchers like him that this issue is not new; even in the third century Hijri, the heroes of "Diraayah" among the Mu'tazila were busy trying to cast doubt on this hadith as well. Allah Almighty, the protector of the noble hadith, granted the scholars the ability to explain the true meaning of this hadith and expose those people. Among the scholars of that time who responded to this hadith was the famous Muhaddith Hafiz Abu Hatim Muhammad bin Hibban (d. 354 AH). He established this topic in his Sahih:
[ذكر خبر شنع به على منتحلى سنن المصطفى ﷺ من حرم التوفيق لادراك معناه]
(Meaning) The mention of this hadith, which those deprived of understanding its true meaning have used as a means to criticize the Muhaddithin.
Then, mentioning the same hadith about Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him) and the slap, he writes:
[إن الله جل وعلا بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم معلما لخلقه، فأنزله موضع الإبانة عن مراده. فبلغ صلى الله عليه وسلم رسالاته، وبين عن آياته بألفاظ مجملة ومفسرة، عقلها عنه أصحابه أو بعضهم. وهذا الخبر من الأخبار التي يدرك معناه من لم يحرم التوفيق لإصابة الحق.
وذلك أن الله جل وعلا أرسل ملك الموت إلى موسى رسالة ابتلاء واختبار، وأمره أن يقول له: أجب ربك، أمر ابتلاء واختبار، لا أمرا يريد الله جل وعلا إمضاءه، كما أمر خليله صلى الله على نبينا وعليه بذبح ابنه أمر اختبار وابتلاء دون الأمر الذي أراد الله جل وعلا إمضاءه، فلما عزم على ذبح ابنه وتله للجبين فداه بالذبح العظيم. وقد بعث الله جل وعلا الملائكة إلى رسله في صور لا يعرفونها، كدخول الملائكة على رسوله إبراهيم ولم يعرفهم، حتى أوجس منهم خيفة، وكمجيء جبريل إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وسؤاله إياه عن الإيمان والإسلام، فلم يعرفه المصطفى صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى ولى. فكان مجيء ملك الموت إلى موسى على غير الصورة التي كان يعرفه موسى عليه السلام عليها. وكان موسى غيورا، فرأى في داره رجلا لم يعرفه، فشال يده فلطمه، فأتت لطمته على فقء عينه في الصورة التي يتصور بها، لا الصورة التي خلقه الله عليها، ولما كان المصرح عن نبينا صلى الله عليه وسلم في خبر ابن عباس حيث قال: "أمني جبريل عند البيت مرتين"، فذكر الخبر، وقال في آخره: "هذا وقتك ووقت الأنبياء قبلك"، كان في هذا الخبر البيان الواضح أن بعض شرائعنا قد تتفق ببعض شرائع من قبلنا من الأمم. ولما كان من شريعتنا أن من فقأ عين الداخل داره بغير إذنه، أو الناظر في بيته بغير أمره من غير جناح على فاعله، ولا حرج على مرتكبه، للأخبار الجمة الواردة فيه التي أمليناها في غير موضع في كتبنا: كان جائزا اتفاق هذه الشريعة بشريعة موسى بإسقاط الحرج عمن فقأ عين الداخل داره بغير إذنه، فكان استعمال موسى هذا الفعل مباحا له، ولا حرج عليه في فعله. فلما رجع ملك الموت إلى ربه، وأخبره بما كان من موسى عليه السلام فيه، أمره ثانيا بأمر آخر، أمر اختبار وابتلاء كما ذكرنا قبل، إذ قال الله له: قل له: إن شئت فضع يدك على متن ثور فلك بكل ما غطت يدك بكل شعرة سنة. فلما علم موسى كليم الله صلى الله على نبينا وعليه أنه ملك الموت وأنه جاءه بالرسالة من عند الله، طابت نفسه بالموت، ولم يستمهل، وقال: "فالآن". فلو كانت المرة الأولى عرفه موسى أنه ملك الموت لاستعمل ما استعمل في المرة الأخرى عند تيقنه وعلمه به، ضد قول من زعم أن أصحاب الحديث حمالة الحطب، ورعاة الليل يجمعون ما لا ينتفعون به، ويروون ما لا يؤجرون عليه، ويقولون بما يبطله الإسلام جهلا منه بمعاني الأخبار، وترك التفقه في الآثار معتمدا منه على رأيه المنكوس وقياسه المعكوس]
(Meaning) Allah Almighty sent the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) to teach His creation and inform them of His will. Thus, he conveyed Allah’s message and explained His verses sometimes briefly and sometimes in detail, which all or some of the understanding and intelligent companions comprehended. This hadith is among those whose meaning can be understood by anyone who has not been deprived of the ability to recognize the truth. The meaning is that Allah Almighty sent the Angel of Death to Musa (peace be upon him) as a test, saying to him, "Prepare for death," but this command was not to be enforced; it was merely a trial and test. Similarly, Allah had previously given a test to Sayyiduna Ibrahim Khalilullah (peace be upon him) to sacrifice his beloved son. That command was also not to be enforced. That is why when Ibrahim (peace be upon him) laid his son face down on the ground to sacrifice him, Allah sent a ram to be sacrificed instead. Moreover, sometimes Allah sent angels to the prophets in forms they did not recognize. For example, angels came to Ibrahim (peace be upon him) in the form of human guests, and when he did not offer them food, the Friend of the Merciful (Ibrahim) became fearful. Similarly, once Angel Jibril (Gabriel) came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in the form of a traveling man and asked questions about faith, Islam, and Ihsan. The Prophet (peace be upon him) recognized him after he left. Likewise, the Angel of Death came to Musa (peace be upon him) in an unfamiliar form. Musa (peace be upon him) could not tolerate seeing a stranger entering without permission and, affected by natural dignity, slapped him on the face, causing his eye to burst, which was not his real eye but a temporary eye of the apparent form. In the hadith of the Imamate of Jibril (peace be upon him), the Prophet (peace be upon him) clarified that after finishing the prayer, Jibril said: [هذا وقتك ووقت الانبياء قبلك] "This is your time and the time of the prophets before you." From this hadith, it is clear that some rulings of this Shariah are similar to those of previous Shariahs, such as in our Shariah, there is no sin or blame for breaking the eye of someone who enters a house without permission or peeps into a place without consent. It is very possible that in Musa’s Shariah, breaking the eye of someone entering without permission was permissible and the owner of the place bore no sin or blame, and Musa (peace be upon him) acted in compliance with this ruling. Then, when the angel complained to Allah about this behavior, he was sent back with another test: tell Musa (peace be upon him), "If you do not want to die, place your hand on the back of a bull, and for every hair under your hand, your life will be extended by one year." Now, the Speaker with Allah (Kalimullah) realized that this was the Angel of Death and that he had come with the message of death from Allah. So, he willingly prepared to die and said, "I want to meet the Truth now."
From the above explanation, it is clear that Musa (peace be upon him) did not recognize the Angel of Death the first time. If he had known, he would certainly have behaved as he did the second time.
Reference: Sahih Ibn Hibban: 75/4-76
This is the meaning of the noble hadith, which a person deprived of the ability to understand the hadith and the prophetic traditions (علیٰ صاحبہا الف الف تحتیہ) due to his inverted understanding and reliance on contrary assumptions could not comprehend and instead accused the noble Muhaddithin of fabricating and making baseless claims in the darkness of night.
This hadith related to Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him) seemed contrary to "common sense" to our Maulana as well, like the Mu'tazila. However, according to Hafiz Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him), it was a trial that was destined to end this way.
Obviously, the time of death is not approximate.
[اِذَا جَآءَ اَجَلُہُمۡ فَلَا یَسۡتَاۡخِرُوۡنَ سَاعَۃً وَّ لَا یَسۡتَقۡدِمُوۡنَ]
Reference: (Yunus: 49)
The Angel of Death came, was slapped, and left; Musa (peace be upon him) lived for a long time after that. The reality is that the Angel of Death came in human form before the appointed time as a test, presented a demand to Musa (peace be upon him) in a manner he had no right to, and was punished for it. This was the will of Divine Power. Such stages come in the lives of the prophets that are beyond the reach of common sense. Whoever tries to measure them by the standards of common sense will fail. Their satisfaction will only be in denying it and creating a false sense of comfort for reason.
The miracles of the prophets and their relationship with the Almighty are not matters of common sense; even the intellects of the elite are amazed. If the nature can be satisfied, accept it in the words of the Lawgiver; otherwise, decide as you wish. If it is forced upon reason, reason will break, but these events will remain.
Respectful Request:
When Maulana's statements reached the point where doubt was cast on three hadiths, I felt deeply saddened. When I tried to write something about Maulana's statements, my heart was filled with sorrow and grief, so I put down the pen. I did not want any phrase to come out of my pen that would be against the respect of Maulana. Today, after a long time, I have taken up the pen again. Even today, there is pain and anxiety in my feelings regarding the Sunnah of the Prophet. People of such stature speak so carelessly about the Sunnah whatever comes to their mouth. If any unpleasant word has come out of the pen at this time, I sincerely apologize for it from the bottom of my heart. The purpose is not to criticize or insult. In this back and forth, such words against the Sunnah and the Prophetic sciences are indeed unpleasant. Satire against Maulana is absolutely not intended. Love for the Sunnah and the heart's connection with the Sunnah has caused the expression of troubled thoughts.
Conversation of the lovers about the Lord
Passion of love is not the abandonment of etiquette
Some anecdotes from Maulana's statements and Maududi Sahib's "Path of Moderation" are absolutely not worthy of publication; some parts are correct but expressed in a wrong manner. In the path of moderation, the junkyard of the mind has produced thoughts with such imbalance that even a denier of Hadith would have written the same.
Discussions of the Imams of Hadith:
Maulana has highlighted the mutual disputes among the Muhaddithin even more prominently than those among the Ahl al-Quran, and in such a manner that it seems Maulana is bestowing something strange and new upon the Ummah. Maulana should consider that this is a weakness of human nature; leave aside the science of Rijal, no discipline is free from it. In poetry and prose, literature, syntax and grammar, semantics, rhetoric, jurisprudence, and principles of jurisprudence, in which discipline are such disputes not found? According to the esteemed Imams of Tafsir, this weakness also exists, and should you then desist from the benefits of your group and scholars? Since the science of Rijal was established, such material has existed, and despite this, the distinction between truth and falsehood can be made without doubt and has been made. Then why was there a need to mention this unnecessary material at the time of defending Hadith? Where there was an opportunity to speak eye to eye, you lowered your gaze out of shame; where there was an opportunity to stand firm, you prostrated your head.
Abdullah Chakralvi, Khawaja Ahmad Deen Amritsari, Mistri Ramzan Gujranwala, Mehboob Shah Gujranwala, Syed Umar Shah Gujrat, Sheikh Attaullah Wakeel, Mufti Muhammad Deen Wakeel Gujrat, the Hadith deniers of Multan, the Ahl al-Quran of Dera Ghazi Khan, the leadership of Idara Tulu-e-Islam, and the atheists of Iradah Saqafat-e-Islamia — no one is unaware of the aftermath of the Mashriqeen and their years-long mutual strife, but have they ever mentioned this before you? Have they ever acknowledged the scattered thoughts and misconduct related to prayer, zakat, and Hajj present among these pillars of atheism and immorality? Then what trouble does Maulana Maududi have in publicizing some opposing views and thoughts of Imam Ibn Ishaq (may Allah have mercy on him) and Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), or lamenting the glimmer of disagreement between Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) and A'mash (may Allah have mercy on him)?
What effect does this have on the original science and its virtues, and among those saints whose number reaches thousands, if at some time in one or one hundred and fifty cases (provided the chain of narration is authentic) there was some bitterness or dispute, how much effect can it have on the entire science? My sincere advice is, first of all, why do you take upon yourselves the responsibility of defending the Sunnah? You have two or three individuals like Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar Hasan who, perhaps out of respect for your group's temperament and its order, remain silent; grant them permission, let them write on this subject and write according to the voice of their conscience. They should be exempted from the collective temperament of the group. I believe they can perform this duty better. This is a communal obligation; let it be placed upon them.
Even during the time of Prophethood, there existed an element that was uneasy with the detailed instructions, training, and accountability of the Prophet. Sometimes this mindset became evident in matters such as the distribution of spoils of war.
[ان هذا قسمة لم يرد به وجه الله]
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari: 3150
At other times, they attributed exaggeration to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), trying in various ways to create aversion towards him. [رَاَیۡتَ الۡمُنٰفِقِیۡنَ یَصُدُّوۡنَ عَنۡکَ صُدُوۡدًا] The hypocrites feared coming to his presence and are like rabid dogs. However, due to the presence of wise and mature natures, this mindset was not able to emerge fully. During the caliphate of Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), these people got some opportunity to speak openly and collectively cause mischief, the details of which are found in books of hadith and literature.
Organization of this mindset:
But in the second century, due to the Mu'tazila, this mindset took a formal and principled shape. However, the Kharijites and these groups could not openly deny Hadith. The Kharijites denied the virtues of Ahl al-Bayt, the Mu'tazila denied the Hadith of attributes, and the Shi'a denied the Hadith of merits. Apart from this, these groups fully respected the Hadith. The Mu'tazila are Shi'a in jurisprudence, some are Hanafi and Shafi'i. They use Hadith as evidence in jurisprudence like their respective Imams. Similarly, Hadith is still read and taught among the Kharijites today.
There is a book of Hadith among the Kharijites called Al-Jami' al-Sahih, issued by the government of Muscat, which they read with great reverence. This partial denial of the Kharijites is also mentioned in the books of Sunnah. The Abbasid government patronized the Mu'tazila. This fitnah (trial) arose around the second century. Therefore, this backdoor to denying Hadith was opened around the second century. Their main emphasis was on those Hadith that were against their fabrications regarding the attributes of Allah Almighty, and the state of the safety of Rizq (sustenance) regarding Hadith is such that they even dismiss mutawatir Hadith as ahad (solitary), and they interpret the Quranic texts in such a way that if the Prophet ﷺ were to hear it, he would be astonished.
The long and hidden revelations were all created
God, Gabriel, and Mustafa
Confusion about the singulars at the beginning of the second century:
These people did not exist in the early centuries of goodness; only those who have experienced them before can identify them. Ibn Hazm states:
[وایضا فان جمیع اھل الاسلام کانو علی قبول خبر الواحد الثقۃ عن النبی ﷺ یجری علی ذالک کل فرقۃ فی علمھا کاھل السنۃ والخوارج والشیعۃ والقدریۃ حتی حدث متکلمو المعتزلۃ بعد الماۃ من التاریخ فخالفو الاجماع فی ذالک]
All Muslims, if the narrator is trustworthy, used to accept solitary reports. The Ahl al-Sunnah, Kharijites, Shia, and Qadariyyah also held this view. After the first century, the group of Mu'tazilite theologians emerged and opposed this consensus of the Ummah.
Reference: Al-Ahkam: p.114
❀ Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, and Ishaq ibn Rahwayh considered it disbelief to deny a solitary authentic report that has been established. Ibn Qayyim expresses astonishment at these people in one place: "These people do not accept the hadiths of the Prophet ﷺ because they are solitary; they do not gain knowledge from them, and instead accept intellectual ideas and false doubts transmitted from the Mu'tazilah, Jahmiyyah, and philosophers, calling them rational proofs."
Reference: Sawa'iq: vol. 2, p.375
❀ Ibn Qayyim wrote over a hundred pages in the second volume of Sawa'iq al-Mursalah against the Mu'tazilah's theory, which denied solitary reports and, based on this theory, rejected hundreds of authentic Sunnah narrations. Those seeking the truth should pay attention to this. For a research study on hadith, one should definitely consult the chapter on Sunnah in Muwafaqat, the chapter on Sunnah in Ahkam Ibn Hazm, and this section of Sawa'iq al-Mursalah.
Second Era:
Only the Ahl al-Hadith and Hanbalis were safe from this attack of the Mu'tazila. Some scholars among the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is, and Shias were influenced by the Mu'tazila. They accepted ahadith in branches of jurisprudence and believed in the speculative nature of ahadith. Among the Hanafis, Bishr al-Marisi (228 AH) was openly Mu'tazili. Qadi Isa ibn Aban (221 AH) [Qadi Isa ibn Aban's school of thought was not popular among the early Hanafi imams, as is evident from the Usul al-Bazdawi and its commentary. The Hanafi followers influenced by him considered his views as their own and benefited from them, rejecting the narrations of Misraṭah and ʿUrayrah. Nowadays, some novices and less knowledgeable people try to attribute this erroneous and unfortunate view to Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, to give some respect to this view. This narration is reported from Abu Mati' al-Balkhi. The narration is completely fabricated and forged, and its attribution to the Imam is entirely false. Abu Mati' al-Balkhi is considered unreliable by the scholars of hadith criticism. Al-Dhahabi says he is careless in preserving narrations; Ibn Ma'in said he is a liar; Al-Nasa'i called him weak; Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said his narrations are not authentic; Abu Dawud said he is abandoned in narration and Jahmi; Ibn 'Adi said his weakness is apparent; Ibn Hibban said he is the leader of Murhabah, hates the Sunnah, and distorts meanings. He died in 199 AH.
Reference: (Mizan al-I'tidal: also Tarikh al-Khatib: p.223)
This attribution is absolutely false, fabricated, and forged. Some recent students of knowledge have tried to highlight it. Other researchers will discuss this effect at another time. For now, it is sufficient to state that attributing this entire view to Imam Abu Hanifa is incorrect.] He was a student of Imam Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him. Maulana Abdul Hayy wrote a brief biography of him in Fawa'id al-Bahiyah. Ibn al-Nadim wrote in his catalog that he belonged to a royal family and then took up scholarly pursuits. Khatib explicitly stated that he was a believer in the createdness of the Qur'an.[قال عيسى بن ابان وعبد الجبار من المعتزلة]
From these indications, it appears that Qadi Isa ibn Aban also leaned towards the Mu'tazila.
Reference: p.175
❀ Because of him, even in branches of jurisprudence, solitary reports (akhbar al-ahad) began to be viewed with suspicion. Thus, if a narrator is just and precise but not a jurist, his narration would not be accepted; rather, analogy (qiyas) would be preferred over that narration.
[وامأ رواية من لم يعرف بالفقه ولكنه معروف بالعدالة والضبط مثل ابى هريرة وانس بن مالك فأن وافق القياس عمل به وان خالفه لم يترك الا بالضرورة]
If a just and precise narrator is not a jurist, like Abu Hurairah and Anas ibn Malik, may Allah be pleased with them, their narration will be accepted if it agrees with analogy; otherwise, it will definitely be abandoned.
Reference: Usul al-Bazdawi: vol. 2, p.699
❀ Qadi Abdul Aziz ibn Ahmad, the commentator of Usul al-Bazdawi, states: "The condition we imposed for preferring hadith over analogy, that the narrator be a jurist, is only the doctrine of Isa ibn Aban. Qadi Abu Zayd al-Dubusi liked it and extracted the hadiths of Misraṭah and ʿUrayrah on this principle, and many later scholars adopted it. Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Karkhi and the rest of the esteemed Hanafis oppose it. They say that the hadith of a just and precise narrator will be preferred over analogy in any case, and most scholars hold this view. Imam Abu Hanifa himself preferred weak hadith over analogy."
Reference: Kashf al-Asrar: vol. 2, p.703
This rule is recorded in almost all books of usul al-fiqh. The early Hanafis did not approve it. Moreover, this view is incorrect. It is strange that Qadi Isa ibn Aban would call great figures like our master Abu Hurairah and Anas, may Allah be pleased with them, who were present for years in the service of the Prophet ﷺ and whose mother tongue was Arabic, non-jurists. Whereas he himself was neither Arab nor from a scholarly family. Furthermore, the jurisprudence of Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, is well known; the senior companions used to refer to him in legal matters. He even held governorship positions. The Hanafi imams themselves accepted his ahadith even if they contradicted analogy. Details can be found in Kashf al-Asrar, Kitab al-Tahqiq, and other comprehensive works. Despite this, among the later Hanafis, a partial loophole was opened for rejecting hadith.
A way was created to abandon solitary reports, but with such caution that only those ahadith would be abandoned whose narrators were not jurists. (Here, jurist means someone who knows Arabic well and does not err in the meaning of the narration.) The narrations of jurist narrators, whether agreeing or disagreeing with opinion, are accepted by Qadi Isa ibn Aban and his followers. They believe the door of opinion should not be closed; there should be some room for it somewhere. Despite this caution, their doctrine did not gain acceptance among the early Hanafis. Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Yusuf, Imam Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on them, and the famous students of the Imam differ with Qadi Isa ibn Aban on this caution. The correct path is the one adopted by the majority of the Imams of the Sunnah. The school of Qadi Isa ibn Aban smells of Mu'tazila, and the viewpoint of the Imams of Hadith differs even from the early and senior Hanafis.
Second era:
Among the later Hanafis, the school of Qazi Isa bin Aban began to be followed. Jurisprudence and principles of jurisprudence were developed based on his approach. In some places, even slow-moving hadiths were given far-fetched interpretations. In Ayni's commentary on Kanz, the permissibility of Nikah Halala is mentioned, and the interpretation of hadith [لعن اللہ المحلل والمحلل لہ] is given as [لعلہ اراد باللعنۃ الرحمۃ], meaning that the curse in the hadith might actually imply mercy. [Ayni on the margin of Kanz Koshuri]
In short, the later scholars' writings were significantly influenced by the Mu'tazila. The very first book on the principles of jurisprudence was authored by Imam Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him. [اول من صنف فیہ الامام الشافعی] [کشف الظنون: ج1، ص89]
❀ After that, when the science of Usul al-Fiqh was codified, both Ahl al-Hadith and the Mu'tazila wrote extensively in it.
[واكثر التصانيف فى اصول الفقه لاهل الاعتزال المخالفين لنا فى الاصول ولاهل الحديث المخالفين لنا فى الفروع]
In Usul al-Fiqh, the Mu'tazila contributed more; they differ from us in principles and beliefs, or the Ahl al-Hadith authored works that differ from us in the branches of jurisprudence.
Reference: Kashf al-Zunun: Vol.1, p.89
,[Abjad al-Uloom: Vol.2, p.325[/ref]❀ The influence of the Mu'tazila was certainly on beliefs, but jurisprudence was not spared from it either.
[بعضهم يزعم ان بناء المذهب علىٰ هذه المحاورات الجدلية المذكورة مبسوط السرخسى والهداية والتبيين ونحو ذالك ولا ان اول من اظهر ذالك فيهم المعتزلة وليس عليه بناء مذهبهم]
Some people think that the dialectical debates found in al-Hidayah, al-Tibyan, and al-Mabsut al-Sarkhasi are based on the Hanafi madhhab; they do not know that this is due to the kindness of the Mu'tazila. The Hanafi madhhab is not based on them.
Reference: Hujjatullah: p.160, Vol.1
In short, in the later period, the branches of jurisprudence were influenced by them, and their impact on beliefs affected actions thereafter.
Fiqh of the Narrator:
At another place, Shah Sahib said:
The firm opinion of the researchers is that after justice and memory, the condition of jurisprudence for the narrator is only the religion of Isa bin Aban, and many later scholars agree with them, Imam Karkhi is against it, and this religion is not transmitted from the early Hanafis either. Their opinion is that hadith is in any case primary.
Reference: Hujjatullah: p161, vol 1
In short, the adulteration of opinion and conjecture is among the later scholars, it was not among the early ones. Despite this caution of the early scholars, the Imams of Hadith were neither satisfied with the method of the predecessors nor with the method of the later scholars; these gentlemen found the pure sources of hadith and sunnah impure in both places.
Shu’bi says:
[لقد بغض الى هؤلاء الارائيون المسجد حتى انه لا بغض الى من كناسته دارى قالوا من هم قال الحكم وحماد اصحابه]
Reference: Mukhtasar Bayan al-Ilm: Ibn Abdul Barr, p146, vol 2], [Al-Qawl al-Mufid by Al-Shawkani]
Those who are not satisfied with this cautious method at that time, how can they be satisfied with naturalism nowadays? The contemporary Ahl al-Hadith see everything and no harm comes to their Salafism.
اكل امرء تحسبینى امراء
ونار توقد بالليل ناراً
We certainly know that the four Imams consider Hadith as authoritative, regard it as the source of religion, and accept it as authoritative in the same sense that the Imams of the Sunnah and the general Muslim community do. Despite considering each other Muslims, the Ahl al-Hadith differ from the Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali jurisprudences; they find the sanctity and preservation of Hadith and Sunnah in these schools of thought highly respected and safeguarded.
Fourth Era:
After the arrival of the English, when the educational system in the country was divided, religious education became separate from secular education. The mindset of schools and colleges became different from that of religious seminaries. Christian missionaries, under the patronage of their government, spread throughout India. Not only were the scholars and religious seminaries unaffected by them, but those who supported English education were also greatly influenced. From the late Syed Ahmad Khan to the students and teachers of schools, none could escape its influence. Some of these individuals' attachment to Islam was genuinely sincere. These people vigorously took up the pen in response to Christian doubts, but since their minds were influenced, their writing faltered.
These things are evident in "Ummahat al-Mu'minin," "Khutbat-e-Ahmadiya," and "Tafseer Ahmadi" (authored by Syed Ahmad Khan). Any hadith that contradicted their objectives was dismissed; where the meaning of a verse or a miracle deviated from nature, its form was distorted in such a way that in interpretation and alteration, a synonymy was created that even the angels were astonished by. The government also benefited from this. The hearts burning with the fire of revenge due to the atrocities of 1857 found a temporary pastime. The effects of this mindset appeared in various ways throughout the country.
The leaders of Qadian were showered with interpretations. Maulvi Abdullah Chakralvi learned the lesson of rejecting hadith. Even great scholars like Maulana Shibli and Maulana Hamiduddin Farahi, may Allah have mercy on them, were somewhat influenced by it. In the parts of Maulana Farahi's tafseer published in Arabic, very little benefit was taken from hadith; rather, considerable use was made of the current versions of the Torah and the Gospel.
