After reasonably accepting this point, it should be examined whether the scholars have accepted this point regarding the Sahihs, especially the two Sahihs, or if it is based only on the available and accessible evidence. The position of the majority of scholars regarding the narrators who conceal their sources (mudallis) in the two Sahihs, and even some considering it a coincidental and collective issue that the narrations of mudallis in the two Sahihs are to be understood as based on hearing (sama‘), is this not based on the same reasonable point? Allama Qastalani, may Allah have mercy on him, said: [وما فيهما من حديثهم بالعنعنة ونحوها محمول على ثبوت السماع عند المخرج من وجه آخر ولم نطلع عليه تحسينا للظن بصاحبى الصحيح]
And the narrations in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that are from mudallis are understood on the basis that, according to them, the hearing (sama‘) of these narrators is established in other chains, although we are not aware of their hearing. We say this with good opinion of Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, and Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him.
Reference: (Irshad al-Sari: p.9 vol.1)
Some later scholars have attributed it merely to good opinion and have said that in the Sahihayn there are some narrations of mudallis whose isnads do not explicitly mention hearing. We have already stated that the issue is not with the later scholars' opinion, but rather the earlier scholars' opinion is to be considered. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, has said a very contradictory statement in
Reference: Fath al-Bari Introduction (p.385)
:Due to the strict conditions of the narrators from whom Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, took narrations, the claim of interruption (inqita') in their narrations is refuted. Nevertheless, the narrations of the mudallis that are introduced by 'an' will be investigated; if an explicit mention of hearing (sama') is found in them, then the objection of interruption will be removed, otherwise not.
If the claim of discontinuity of transmission is based on the conditions of Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, then why is the lack of specification of hearing not refuted on the same grounds in the case of the claim of tadlis or isal? If we accept his statement, as some other scholars have also expressed dissatisfaction regarding such narrations, then this is at most about those narrations which are in the category of evidence and corroborations, not about those narrations which are fundamental and from which Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, derived his arguments. Thus, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, states: [ليست الأحاديث التي في الصحيحين بالعنعنة عن المدلسين كلها في الاحتجاج، فيحمل كلامهم هنا على ما كان منها في الاحتجاج فقط أما ما كان في المتابعات فيحتمل أن يكون حصل التسامح في تخريجها كغيرها]
Not all the mursal narrations of the mudallis in the Sahihayn are at the level of proof. (Those who have interpreted them as based on hearing are Allama Ibn al-Salah, may Allah have mercy on him, and Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, etc.) His statement here is about those narrations which have been used as proof; as for those narrations which are corroborations, like other narrations, there is a possibility of leniency.
Reference: (Al-Nukat: p.636 vol.2)
It becomes as clear as noon that due to Imam Bukhari's vast knowledge and his strict conditions, the majority of scholars have trusted him, and apparently, they have not accepted discontinuity in Sahih Bukhari. Especially those narrations which Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned as principles and for reasoning, such objections are not considered valid. Just as a narrator who has been declared unknown and from whom Imam Bukhari has narrated in Al-Jami' Al-Sahih, such a narrator is considered trustworthy, and the mere fact that his narration is in Al-Jami' Al-Sahih is deemed sufficient to remove his ignorance.
See:
Reference: (Introduction to Fath al-Bari: p.384), (Al-Mawqizah: p.306)
Similarly, the accusation of interruption or denial in the narration is also not credible; rather, it will be considered continuous and authentic, especially when such an objection is transmitted from a later source. This clarification of ours makes it clear that the majority of the early scholars (Imams of Salaf) accepted this point and, acknowledging the grandeur and vast knowledge of Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him), considered the narrations of Sahih Bukhari, particularly those hadiths which the Imam himself mentioned in his principles and used for reasoning, as continuous and authentic. If the people of Ishraq (Illuminationists) do not agree with this, then we are not surprised; they have deviated from the collective stance of the Salaf on many issues, as we have previously pointed out.
We have already stated that from Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) until now, all scholars have accepted this hadith narrated by Abu Usama from Hisham as authentic, but the Ahl-e-Ishraq do not agree with them due to their specific views. In this context, we mentioned with reference to Allama Kashmiri (may Allah have mercy on him) that in the matter of authentication and criticism, the judgment of the earlier hadith scholars is the only reliable one. However, this statement of ours was also unpleasant to the Ahl-e-Ishraq, and they fabricated the claim that "Allama Kashmiri's position is not about judging the narrator's integrity and character or his precision and mastery, and on that basis indicating the narrator's errors and doubts. This is why Allama Kashmiri declared the name of Hassan bin Thabit, who was among those who slandered Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) in the incident of Ifk, as mentioned in Sahih Bukhari (number: 4141), to be against research in Faiz al-Bari."
Reference: (In summary, Ishraq: pp. 51-52)
First, see whether in fact Allama Kashmiri praised the decisions of the earlier hadith scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, regarding narrations only in relation to the narrator's integrity and his precision and mastery, or whether it also pertains to the narrator's interpretation and conjecture. Thus, the passage of Allama Kashmiri, may Allah have mercy on him, which we have quoted with reference to
Reference: Faiz al-Bari 
p.414 vol.2)
, if the people of insight had reviewed the subsequent passage, they certainly would not have said this despite their insight. The words of Allama Kashmiri, may Allah have mercy on him, are: [وحينئذ إن وجدت النووى مثلاً يتكلم في الحديث والترمذى يحسنه، فعليك بما ذهب إليه الترمذى، ولم يحسن الحافظ في عدم قبول تحسين الترمذى، فإن مبناه على القواعد لا غير، وحكم الترمذى يبنى على الذوق والوجدان الصحيح وإن هذا هو العلم وإنما الضوابط عصا الأعمى]p.414 vol.2)
Therefore, if you see that, for example, Allama Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, has spoken about a hadith and Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, praises it, then you should adopt the position that Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, took. It was not good for Hafiz, may Allah have mercy on him, to reject the praise of Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him. Hafiz, may Allah have mercy on him, is based only on rules, whereas Imam Tirmidhi's ruling is based on correct intuition and taste, and this is the real knowledge. Rules are like a stick for the blind.
Reference: (Faiz al-Bari: p.415 vol.4)
Consider: Apart from the rules of the narrators' integrity and memorization and discipline, what is true insight and taste? In view of its importance, Allama Kashmiri, may Allah have mercy on him, gives precedence to the decisions of the earlier scholars. Does this also include the narrators' doubts and alterations or not? In our view, this is also evidence of the excessive pride in knowledge of the people of illumination, that it is assumed the earlier Imams were aware of the narrators' integrity and the subtleties of their memorization and discipline, but they were not informed about their alterations and doubts; this information, Mashallah, could only be known to the "high-minded" scholars of the people of illumination. Tell me, if this thought is not considered stubbornness and scholarly arrogance, then what else should it be considered?
As for the matter that Allama Kashmiri, may Allah have mercy on him, declared the hadith in
Reference: Bukhari (No: 4141)
, in which Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was accused and Hazrat Hassan bin Thabit (may Allah be pleased with him) is mentioned among those who accused her, as contrary to research. Here, leaving aside the detailed discussion on whether Hazrat Hassan (may Allah be pleased with him) was actually among those who accused or not, we ask the people of insight: Did Allama Kashmiri, may Allah have mercy on him, say about any narrator of this hadith that he erred in counting Hazrat Hassan (may Allah be pleased with him) among those who accused? If not, and certainly not, then why is it correct to mention him as an example in [بحث ما نحن فيه]? The claim is that despite the narrators being just and precise and the chain appearing apparently sound, the hadith is not protected from the narrators' interventions, and the earlier scholars were sometimes unaware of such interventions. When Allama Kashmiri, may Allah have mercy on him, did not mention any such intervention by the narrator, what rationality is there in presenting it to support one's position? Opposing the content of the hadith based on one's research and study and the narrator's intervention in the hadith are two separate issues, but the people of insight, not considering this distinction, have fallen into confusion of topics.Allama Kashmiri, may Allah have mercy on him, did not declare this narration of Bukhari weak due to any alteration by a narrator; rather, he considered the statement of Hazrat Hassan, may Allah be pleased with him, to be more authoritative and reliable, which were the verses he recited in praise of Hazrat Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her. That is, according to him, the issue here is one of preference between two opinions, not a matter of weakness in authenticity as the proponents of speculative argumentation have understood.
As for the stance of the late Allama Kashmiri, it is not necessary here to discuss whether it is right or wrong; otherwise, we would say that the position he adopted here, differing from all other commentators, is completely contrary to the truth. Not only that, but in this discussion, he also made other statements that are absolutely incorrect and entirely opposite to reality. However, this entire detail is not our subject here; we only intended to state that what he said has nothing to do with narrator alteration or the authenticity and weakness of the narration.
We have also stated that there is consensus on the authenticity of the Sahihayn; however, the few narrations on which some hadith scholars have criticized are excluded from this consensus, and these criticisms are mostly technical in nature and pertain to preference and rejection, not to authenticity or weakness. During the period of hadith compilation, the hadiths of the Sahihayn were scrutinized, each chain of narration was examined, every narrator in the chain was evaluated, and the text was reviewed. Only then did the esteemed Imams conclude that there is consensus on the authenticity of the Sahihayn. The technical objections were answered, and this position of the Sahihayn was accepted; the verbal objections were also removed. Even after the compilation period, objections raised due to doctrinal or religious rigidity, or on rational and inductive grounds, were also answered point by point by the scholars, the details of which are not the place here. In the recent era, those who have taken issue based on "nature, the law of nature," and "evolution" have also been refuted, and the scholars have clearly distinguished truth from falsehood. شکر اللہ سعیہم
Scholars have always welcomed constructive criticism, because discussion and research refine the art and clarify many issues. However, criticism after the compilation period is generally not in the capacity of the science of Hadith, but rather based on doctrinal and intellectual differences and deviations. These people first establish a theory or are influenced by some "contemporary research," and if they find an authentic Hadith contrary to it, they unleash all their criticism on it. The principles established by the Muhaddithin for the research and verification of Hadith are sometimes used, sometimes a standard of authenticity is arbitrarily set, and authentic Hadiths are subjected to harsh treatment. This is the situation with the people of Ishraq in the present era.
In this discussion, see, firstly: the "Perfect Guide" of the people of Ishraq, despite all his scholarly claims, did not mention the Hadith of [وليستا بمغنيتين], which comes just after the three narrations mentioned by him
Reference: Narration No: 949
at
Reference: (952)
.Secondly: When we drew attention to this narration, the Ahl-e-Ishraq came forward with great determination to declare it weak and unreliable, because it goes against their stance and completely undermines their entire argument.
Thirdly: Their strong objections regarding this were answered one by one, and it was also stated that this narration is found in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, whose authenticity is agreed upon by the scholars, and no one except the Ahl-e-Ishraq has ever declared it weak. Yet, they kept repeating the same claim that it is like a chicken’s single leg.
Fourthly: After scrutinizing the principle on which they based their stance, the authenticity of this narration was explained according to the principle of the Muhaddithin, may Allah have mercy on them, but even this did not satisfy them.
Fifthly: We stated that the hadiths are preserved, but not all of their chains of transmission are preserved. Even after accepting this as "a reasonable point"
Reference: (Ishraq: p.55)
, he does not agree with it. Why? The answer is obvious, and we have explained it in this article.Sixthly: We reiterated the same point in another manner that, in the eyes of the predecessors, there was a treasury of hadiths. They had memorized multiple chains of transmission for each narration, and thus they were the preservers of millions of hadiths. In contrast, judging against the decisions of those earlier muhaddithin by merely leafing through a few printed books is arbitrary. In response, it is said that this stance is "a representation of a particular perspective which is fundamentally different from our viewpoint."
Reference: (Ishraq: p.48)
When this is a "reasonable point," accepting it is rational; conversely, any other "perspective" is based on irrationality, not rationality.
Seventh: Their "perspective" is that in the field of research and criticism of hadiths, the original standard is not the results of research from a specific era, but rather the intellectual and rational principles that the senior hadith scholars of the formative period of hadith knowledge used to establish exemplary traditions of unbiased criticism of narrations. The correct scholarly approach is not to deny the possibility of new critical perspectives in the field of hadith criticism, but whenever any criticism based on evidence and proofs emerges, the relevant narrations should be re-examined both narratively and critically.
Reference: (Ishraq: pp.48-49 June 2007)
It is presented that during the formative period of the science of Hadith, the senior scholars of Hadith conducted unrestricted criticism of the narrations, which established a magnificent tradition. On what principles was this criticism based? It was on these very principles that the senior scholars of Hadith examined the narrations of the Sahihayn, and ultimately it was established that all their narrations, especially those mentioned in the principles and reasoning, are authentic. Except for a few narrations, there is consensus among the senior scholars of Hadith on the authenticity of all other hadiths, and they have been accepted with full acceptance. The narration under discussion is also one of those narrations that are in the principles, and not only the senior scholars of Hadith but also no scholar from the people of illumination spoke on it before them. Was this consensus of the scholars of the Ummah based on error and mistake?
If we now consider the audacity of the people of illumination as obstinacy against the consensus of the Ummah, then why are they angry with us, the incapable ones? Consensus is, after all, paramount, as it is a prophetic command: My Ummah cannot agree upon error or misguidance. According to Imam Shafi'i's statement, the Holy Quran has described it with [سبیل المؤمنین]. Therefore, both knowledge and reason decide that the first position of the people of illumination is absolutely wrong, just as in many collective issues they have deviated and chosen the wrong path.
As for the matter of the possibility of new critical perspectives in the field of hadith criticism, etc., this "point of view" has been heard and read from time to time before the Ahl-e-Ishraq, from Sir Syed to Ghulam Ahmed Parwez. This advice has also echoed from Orientalists, and some intellectuals of the nation have also joined in this tune, but so far no determination or classification of "new critical perspectives" has been made. The principles of hadith criticism, which were from the aspect of hadith or understanding, have been compiled and organized one by one. We should be told which new critical principle has not been previously stated and researched and refined. The same applies to the principles of Fiqh, grammar, morphology, and semantics and rhetoric. The usefulness of their facilitation and arrangement is not denied here or there, but the circumstances indicate that as a discipline this work has been largely organized and completed. If the Ahl-e-Ishraq point out newly compiled principles, we will be grateful to them. Allama Shibli (may Allah have mercy on him), who wrote extensively on this subject, long ago the scholars have thoroughly exposed its reality. If there is anything new from the perspective of Ishraq, please state it! No new principle has been stated in the research of the hadith under discussion on the basis of which it was declared weak. And whatever has been said from different angles, its position is before the esteemed readers.
In response to Ishraq's criticism of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim's narration, which is based on a certain "criterion," it was also stated that some of those who have declared this hadith authentic are known for their prudence, caution, and thorough investigation by all. Then why rely solely on their judgment? Later scholars also examined these narrations further under the same principles and confirmed their authenticity. For the earlier scholars, the collection of hadith was like a treasure. They had memorized multiple chains of transmission for each narration and thus were the memorizers of millions of hadith. Etc.
In response to our request, it was also said that Imam Darqatni, may Allah have mercy on him, is a highly esteemed imam in the science of Rijal and 'Ilal. His broad vision, expertise, and ijtihadi insight in the knowledge of Hadith are fully established. Dr. Abdullah bin Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned that the book Al-'Ilal contains one hundred and fifty narrations transmitted through the chain of Imam Zahri, may Allah have mercy on him. The evidence shows that the conclusions of Imam Darqatni, may Allah have mercy on him, differ from the research results of the predecessors. Therefore, the difference in research with the predecessors does not result in the weakening of Imam Zahri's narrations but rather in their authentication and commendation. In summary!
Reference: (Ishraq: pp.49-50)
Setting aside Ishraq's traditional sarcasm and irony, we have already summarized the essence of their poetry. Ignoring what we mentioned regarding the narrations of the Sahihayn, the people of Ishraq have given the impression through their critique and commentary on Imam Darqutni's Al-‘Ilal that Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, is among the early hadith scholars who had a vast collection of hadith; he had memorized multiple chains of narration for each hadith. However, a contemporary scholar disagreed with him, and the conclusion differed from that of Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him. Therefore, the critique and commentary on the narrations of the Sahihayn and the possibility of new critical perspectives should not be denied; they can be re-examined. But this statement of theirs is also not correct.
First: The words "early hadith scholars" in the context of the author's writing, unfortunately, the people of Ishraq did not pay attention to this. The authentic narrations in Sahihain, on which none of the imams of hadith scholars have criticized, are certainly authentic. Besides the agreement of Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) and Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him), the concurrence of their contemporaries and later scholars has ensured the authenticity of these hadiths. If they had perceived a difference between the "early hadith scholars" and the opinion of any one of the early hadith scholars, they might not have taken this trouble.
Secondly: If Imam Darqatni, may Allah have mercy on him, in reference to Al-‘Ilal, has caused a revelation for the people of Ishraq, there is no cause for concern for us in this. The investigation of his accusations and scrutiny, which Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, and Allama Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, conducted, the people of Ishraq are certainly aware of this. Imam Darqatni, may Allah have mercy on him, is undoubtedly a great Muhaddith and his ijtihadi insight in the knowledge of Hadith is also established. However, in comparison to Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, his position can be estimated from the words of Allama Kashmiri, may Allah have mercy on him, who says:
[إن الدارقطنى يمشى على القواعد الممهدة عندهم فينازعه من القواعد، وشأن البخارى أرفع من ذلك فإنه يمشى على اجتهاده وينظر إلى خصوص المقام وشهادة الوجدان، وإنما القواعد لغير الممارس على حد التحديد للعوام فيما لم يرد التحديد من الشارع. الخ]
Imam Darqatni, may Allah have mercy on him, differs based on the principles of terminology that exist with him, but the status of Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, is much higher than this. He acts upon his ijtihad and takes into account the specificity of the situation and the testimony of intuition. The rules are meant for non-experts and the general public to adhere to and be restricted by, about whom the Shariah does not impose restrictions.
Reference: (Faiz al-Bari: p.57 vol.1)
This is the reason why the criticism of Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, on Sahih Bukhari was not accepted by the scholars. The people of Ishraq should at least keep in mind what Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, said about the hadith of Hazrat Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, under discussion; no other muhaddith objected to it. If some people consider criticism justified based on Imam Darqutni, then they should also understand that apart from the criticized hadiths, the rest of the hadiths were certainly accepted as authentic by the muhaddithin. After his decision, criticizing these hadiths merely to protect one's own views is nothing but deviation from [سبیل المؤمنین].
Hisham bin Urwah is unanimously trustworthy and authoritative. Hafiz Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, referred to him with titles such as Al-Imam, Al-Thiqah, Sheikh al-Islam.
Reference: (Al-Siyar: p.34 vol.6)
In the discussed narration, he narrates from his father Urwah on the authority of Aisha. Criticizing this narration, first the impression was given that except for one, in other narrations Imam Hisham did not hear from his father. When this misunderstanding of theirs was clarified, they admitted that there is no disagreement about Hisham hearing from his father. The second objection was that after going to Iraq, Hisham became careless in narrating from his father. Regarding this, it was said that this narration is also narrated from Hisham by his Basran students.
In response, it was said that the objection is not related to the traditions of the people of Kufa, but rather to the narrations narrated by Hisham in Kufa. Therefore, regardless of the city from which those narrating from him come, if they heard from Hisham after coming to Kufa, then the ruling on their narrations cannot be different from other narrations of that era. We said, respected sir! These narrations from Hisham have been narrated by Abu Usama Hamad bin Usama, who, although Kufan, had a special connection with Hisham. Imam Ahmad has clarified in this regard that no one narrates better from Hisham than Hamad bin Usama. He narrates six hundred hadiths from him, and about seventy of these narrations are found in Bukhari and Muslim. He has also praised Hamad's unique narrations from Hisham. After these clarifications by Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), can any sane person say that Abu Usama Hamad bin Usama is Iraqi? The narrations narrated by Hisham in Iraq are weak, so this narration of Abu Usama is also a result of misconception. Despite our clarification, it is regrettable that satisfaction was expressed by saying that the respected Maulana did not address this point in his recent article.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.185)
Readers of Ishraq will surely accept this as true, but we request them to first refer to
Reference: Ishraq June 2007, Issue No: 6, p.72, lines 13-14
, in which we stated that as for the matter of Hisham’s Basri students having also heard from him after his arrival in Kufa, if not in Medina, its clarification is forthcoming. After that, see
Reference: p.41, lines 20, 21, 23
, which we have just quoted above. What should have been done is that they should have pointed out five or six narrations from Hisham through Hamad bin Asama, about which the hadith scholars explicitly stated that there was an error from Hamad, and also denied that Hamad had any exclusivity from Hisham. But they could not do this; instead, as a consolation, they said, "No objection has been raised to our point." سبحان اللہIt will also be of interest here that the objection raised by the Ahl al-Ishraq regarding Hisham's journey to Kufa, stating that the narrations he narrated in Medina Tayyiba are authentic, but those narrated in Kufa are questionable and certainly not continuous, has been unconsciously refuted by him in his recent article. He states:
The narration of the assassination attempt on Hazrat Umar رضي الله عنه has been transmitted through the chain of Hisham from Urwah from Al-Miswar bin Makhramah. Among Hisham's students, Zaida, Ismail bin Zakariya, Ali bin Musher, Abu Dhamrah, Laith bin Saad, Mufaddal bin Fudala, Abu Usamah, Hammad bin Salmah, Abu Muawiyah, and Abda narrate it from the words of Al-Miswar bin Makhramah, while Imam Malik رحمه الله narrated it with the words إن المسور بن مخرمة أخبره. Imam Darqutni رحمه الله states in
Reference: Al-‘Ilal (p.201 vol.2)
that Imam Malik رحمه الله's statement that Al-Miswar bin Makhramah informed Hisham is a misconception because, contrary to that, the number of narrators who narrated with 'عن' is greater.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.63-64 footnote)
The people of Ishraq should judge whether the narrator from Hisham is Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, from Madinah or not. Those mentioned in comparison are all from Kufa and Egypt, except for Abu Dhamrah Anas bin Iyad. Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, never went to Kufa, whereas it is probable that Abu Dhamrah also heard from Hisham in Kufa, just as the same can be said about Laith and Mufaddal. If there is a possibility in the narration of Basri narrators that they heard from Hisham after he went to Iraq, then why is this possibility not considered for Abu Dhamrah, Laith, and Mufaddal? But this possibility cannot be applied to Imam Malik at all. Yet, despite this, the narration of Imam Malik, the Sheikh of the people of Madinah, from Hisham is considered weak, and the narrations of others are considered stronger. Here, declaring Imam Malik’s chain of narration weak, does it not contradict the claim of the people of Ishraq?
Here, the matter is even stranger. It has been stated that if in one or two chains of a m‘ann‘an narration there is explicit indication of continuity, then is there no possibility of the narrator’s intervention, and does it become the definitive evidence of continuity? In support of this "decision," they presented the narration of Imam Malik from Hisham regarding the attack on Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) through Imam Darqutni (may Allah have mercy on him). It is as if, according to the people of Ishraq, if the narrator is not a mudallis, then in every narration of his, explicit continuity is the definitive proof of its being connected. In the case of m‘ann‘an narration, if a narrator explicitly states hearing (sama‘), then the possibility of the narrator’s intervention and discontinuity remains, although their opinion is absolutely incorrect. The majority of muhaddithin consider the m‘ann‘an narration to be connected if the narrator is not a mudallis and there is contemporaneity between him and the one narrated from, but Imam Ali ibn Madini and Imam Bukhari, etc., also consider the condition of meeting (liqa’) necessary for continuity. The introduction of Sahih Muslim and all books of the principles of hadith contain detailed explanations of this, which would cause lengthiness here. If the people of Ishraq present the testimony of the great muhaddithin in support of their position, we will be grateful to them; otherwise, we will consider their stance to be as incorrect as their position on the excess of thiqa and their position on this narration of the two Sahihs.
As for their stance on Al-‘Ilal by Al-Daraqutni, this too is a result of a lack of reflection on the words of Imam Al-Daraqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, or in haste they could not understand the statement of Imam Al-Daraqutni.
Firstly: It was said that among the students of Hisham, Zaida, Ismail ibn Zakariya, Ali ibn Musher, Abu Dhamra, Laith ibn Saad, Mufaddal, Abu Usama, Hammad, Abu Muawiyah, and Abda narrate it from the words of Al-Masur ibn Mukharramah.
Whereas these individuals narrate from Hisham not from Al-Masur ibn Mukharramah but through the chain of __ARABIC_10. The words of Imam Al-Daraqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, are: ARABIC_11__
Reference: (Al-‘Ilal: p.201 vol.2)
Secondly: Translating the subsequent statement of Imam Al-Daraqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, it was said: The statement of Imam Malik that it is a misconception that Masur ibn Mukharramah informed Hisham is incorrect, because Masur ibn Mukharramah informed Urwah, not Hisham. The words are: [وقول مالك عن هشام عن أبيه أن المسور بن مخرمة أخبره وهم منه]
It is unclear whether the mention of Masur informing Hisham here is a conclusion of Hisham’s "Khuliya" or a scribal error.
Thirdly: There is no issue at all here regarding explicit hearing and isnad, i.e., [عن المسور بن مخرمة اور إن المسور بن مخرمة أخبره]. Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, wants to say that the narration which Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, received from [ہشام عن أبيه إن المسور بن مخرمة أخبره] in which Urwah narrates it directly from Masur, is based on Imam Malik's misconception because many students of Hisham mention the intermediary of Sulaiman bin Yasar between Urwah and Masur bin Mukharramah. That is, the real issue is the intermediary of Sulaiman bin Yasar. The narration that Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned from Hisham without intermediary as explicit hearing from Urwah from Masur is based on Imam Malik's misconception. Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, has also stated the same in
Reference: الأحاديث التي خولف فيها مالك] (pp. 81-82)
and said that [هذا لم يسمعه عروة من المسور] Urwah did not hear this hadith from Masur, and the evidence is that a group narrated it through the intermediary of Sulaiman bin Yasar from Masur bin Mukharramah.Fourthly: The scholars of Ishraq know that Urwah is not a fabricator, and the narrations of "Urwah 'an al-Masur" are present in Sahih Bukhari, and in the biographical books, the name of al-Masur bin Mukharramah is also among the teachers of Urwah. Therefore, here the issue of explicit hearing or musannad is an example of __ARABIC_16.
Fifthly: Imam Darqatni, may Allah have mercy on him, also said: ARABIC_17__
That this narration is transmitted by Jarir, Abdullah bin Idris, Isa bin Yunus, Muhammad bin Dinar, Hisham from Urwah from al-Masur.
Reference: (Al-‘Ilal: p.210 vol.2)
He does not mention the intermediary of Sulayman bin Yasar. Yet despite this, Imam Darqatni, may Allah have mercy on him, considers it authentic through the intermediary of Sulayman bin Yasar. From this, it is established that Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, is not unique in mentioning it without an intermediary. But unfortunately, the scholars of Ishraq did not transmit the entire statement of Imam Darqatni, may Allah have mercy on him.
Sixthly: It should be noted that besides Imam Malik, Jarir, Abdullah bin Idris, Isa, and Muhammad bin Dinar, Abdullah bin Numair and Waki' also narrate it directly from "Hisham from Urwah from Al-Miswar."
Reference: Al-Musannaf by Ibn Abi Shaybah (p.25 vol.11), Ibn Sa'd (p.350 vol.3) Masa'il al-Imam Ahmad narrated by his son Abdullah (p.193 vol.1)
, etc. In fact, Abu Al-Zinad also narrates from Urwah from Al-Miswar.
Reference: (Sharh Usool I'tiqad Ahl al-Sunnah: p.825 vol.4), (Az-Zuhd li Ahmad:127)
Therefore, Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, is not unique in narrating it directly; this narration is an example of "Al-Mazid fi Muttasil al-Asanid," which is a type of Hadith sciences. It is not correct to classify it as disconnected (Munqati) based on those who add "Sulaiman bin Yasar," as Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, did. Sheikh Saleem Hilali, may Allah preserve him, has elaborated on this in the margins of Al-Muwatta
Reference: (pp. 286-287 vol.1)
. The people of Ishraq also consider this among the misconceptions of Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, just as they pointed out the misconceptions of Dr. Abdullah bin Muhammad Hasan regarding the book Marwiyat [الإمام الزهري المعلة في كتاب العلل], and expressed disagreement with the conclusions of Imam Darqutni’s research. Therefore, presenting the disagreement in the chain of this narration to support one’s own viewpoint is, in any case, incorrect and consists of many fundamental misunderstandings.Seventhly: It is not only this one narration from Hisham from Imam Malik in which other students of Hisham have differed with Imam Malik, rather Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, has mentioned [الأحاديث التي خولف فيها مالك بن أنس] and other narrations as well. Thus, the first hadith is narrated by Imam Malik, [ہشام بن عروہ عن ابیہ عن أسماء بنت أبي بكر] with a chain of narration which he narrated in Al-Muwatta, Book of Hajj, Chapter on Wearing Dyed Clothes in Ihram. Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, says: Yahya bin Saeed Al-Qattan, Abu Usama Hammad bin Usama, Hammad bin Zaid, etc., narrate it from the chain of __ARABIC_21, ARABIC_22__, and that is the correct one.
Reference: (الأحاديث التي خولف:ص76)
Imam Bayhaqi, may Allah have mercy on him, has also narrated this difference in the chain of narration from Imam Muslim in
Reference: Al-Sunan (p.59, vol.5)
that except for Imam Malik, the other students of Hisham—Hammad bin Usama Abu Usama, Hatim bin Ismail, Ibn Numeer—narrate it from Hisham through Fatimah from Asma, not through Urwah.
Reference: Ibn Abi Shaybah (No. 12872)
also narrates from Abda bin Sulaiman through the chain of Hisham from Fatimah. Note that those who narrate this from Hisham are Basri and Kufi; only Hatim bin Ismail is Madani, and he was originally Kufi but later made Madinah his residence and passed away there.But it is not known exactly when they left Kufa. They passed away in 187 AH, while Hisham died earlier, in 145 or 146 AH. In the list of teachers of Hatim, may Allah have mercy on him, there is mention of teachers from Madinah and Kufa. Besides them, Basri and Kufi students narrating from Hisham with a certain chain of transmission were opposed by Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him. From the perspective of the people of Ishraq, it would have been appropriate to give precedence to the narration of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, since he was from Madinah and heard directly from Hisham there. However, Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, gives precedence to the narrations from Basri and Kufi students from Hisham, which supports our position that all narrations after Hisham left Madinah Tayyibah are not to be considered, as the people of Ishraq want to believe. In our view, both chains of transmission are authentic: one through Urwah from Masur, as Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, stated, and the other through Urwah from Sulaiman bin Yasar from Masur.
They have quoted a passage from Imam Ibn Abdul Barr's
Reference: Al-Tamhid (pp. 119-120, vol. 12)
in support of their position, in which he comments on a narration transmitted by some of Hisham's students, such as Hammad ibn Salamah, Abu Awana, and Wahib, stating that the narration of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, is stronger, and that the narration reported by his opponents, Hammad, Wahib, and others from the people of Iraq, is weak because they narrated it after leaving Medina. In summary
Reference: (Ishraq: pp. 59-60)
Undoubtedly, Imam Ibn Abdul Barr, may Allah have mercy on him, stated this, but the people of Ishraq, after this, by saying: here the agreement or disagreement with the criticism made on Hisham's mentioned narration is not under discussion, have indicated the weakness of their own position. When fundamentally there is agreement with the position of Allama Ibn Abdul Barr, may Allah have mercy on him, then there should also be agreement on his commentary on this narration. This way of thinking is, in itself, undermining the weakness of their position. And this is because they are probably aware that the words narrated from Hisham by Hammad and Wahib, etc., against Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, can be reconciled and harmonized, and the position of the Imams like Imam Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, is according to the narration of Wahib, etc. There is no such contradiction between the two that they cannot be reconciled.
We had stated that after leaving Madinah Tayyibah, to say that all the narrations of Hisham cannot be considered definitely connected is against the statements of the Muhaddithin. Regarding Tahdhib, we have mentioned that Hisham came to Kufa three times; the first time he came, he used to say [حدثنی أبی قال سمعت عائشة], meaning he did not send (the chain), rather he explicitly mentioned hearing (sama'). The second time he came, he used to say __ARABIC_24, and the third time he came, he used to say ARABIC_25__. That is, he did not mention hearing from his father and his father from Hazrat Aisha (RA).
Reference: (Tahdhib: p.50 vol.11), (As-Siyar: p.34 vol.6 etc.)
Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
[ما أحسن حديث الكوفيين عن هشام بن عروة أسندوا عنه أشياء، قال وما أرى ذلك إلا على النشاط يعني أن هشاماً ينشط تارة فيسند ثم يرسل مرة أخرى]
How good are the hadiths from Hisham from the people of Kufa is shown by some narrations with chains. He said that I consider this to be the result of Hisham's enthusiasm; when he was enthusiastic, he would mention the chain, and when he was in a state of confusion, he would mention a mursal (interrupted) chain.
Reference: (Sharh al-‘Ilal Ibn Rajab: p.679 vol.2)
Justice requires that if after going to Kufa, Hisham's narrations are not certainly continuous, then what is the purpose of explicitly mentioning his narrations in Kufa with the statement of hearing and presenting them with chains of transmission, especially the narrations of Hisham from Hammad bin Asama which are in the Sahihayn and which Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, praised. Then what is the criticism of Abu Asama on Hammad bin Asama's narration from Hisham merely on the basis of their being Kufis, if not mere stubbornness and wrongful advocacy of his own position?
Furthermore, see that Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
[أثبت الرواة عن هشام الثوري ومالك ويحيى القطان وابن نمير والليث بن سعد]
Among those who narrated from Hisham, the most reliable are Sufyan al-Thawri, Malik, Yahya al-Qattan, Ibn Numayr, and Laith bin Saad.
Reference: (Sharh al-‘Ilal by Ibn Rajab: p.680)
Consider: Among them, only Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, is from Madinah, while Imam Sufyan al-Thawri, may Allah have mercy on him, and Imam Abdullah ibn Numayr, may Allah have mercy on him, are both from Kufa, and Imam Yahya al-Qattan is from Basra, as is Imam Laith from Misr. If not all of Hisham's narrations in Kufa are certainly connected, then what is the benefit of calling the other Kufan and Basran students, besides Imam Malik, the most reliable? Therefore, outright rejecting Hisham's narrations on the basis that he narrated them outside Madinah and that the narrators are Kufan is not correct in any way; rather, it is equivalent to shooting arrows in the dark.
We agree with the people of Ishraq that in the traditions transmitted by the people of Kufa, there is no clear division indicating which traditions they heard during Hisham's first journey and which ones during the second and third journeys. However, is it not a matter of justice that the narrators from Kufa, whose traditions from Hisham they consider authentic, correct, and good, should be accepted as correct and not rejected merely because they contradict one's own stance? In fact, from our perspective, their demand regarding 'traditions' is also a violation of principles. If a narrator is mixed and variable, then the differentiation in his traditions and the distinction between his authentic and inauthentic traditions depend on his narrators—who among them heard from him during the state of mixture and who before the mixture. This detail is present in all books of the principles of Hadith, which need not be mentioned here. On the contrary, the demand of the people of Ishraq to specify which traditions he narrated before the mixture and which after should be called their fundamental masterpiece, but it is absolutely not a principle of the noble Muhaddithin.
There is a dispute regarding Hisham ibn Urwah about whether he was mixed (in his narrations) or not. We mentioned that Hafiz Ibn al-Qattan, may Allah have mercy on him, referred to his mixing, but Hafiz al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, strongly denied this. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, also refuted it by saying [لم نره في ذلك سلفا], "Ibn al-Qattan, may Allah have mercy on him, has no precedent among the Salaf in this statement." However, the Ahl al-Ishraq disagree with this. They state that the meaning of Hafiz Ibn Hajar's statement is that the indication of a change in Hisham's memory in his later years was first pointed out by Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi, may Allah have mercy on him, because Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, in the introduction to Fath al-Bari (p.199 vol.1) supported Ibn al-Qattan's statement by saying that there is agreement on Hisham's reliability, but in old age his memory became impaired. Therefore, the narrations from those who heard from him during his third visit to Iraq were also affected by this memory deterioration. Imam al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, disagreed with the extent that Hisham's memory change reached the level of mixing, but he did accept the fact of the change itself.
Reference: Mizan (Ishraq: p.59)
Regarding the words of Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, I had mentioned that from the words of [لم نره في ذلك سلفا], he has refuted the claim of Imam Ibn Qattan, may Allah have mercy on him, that Hisham was confused. On the contrary, the meaning determined by the people of illumination is the point of focus because Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, has made such commentary at many places, and from this, the meaning is that he is refuting it. For example, after narrating the authentication of Imam Ibn Ma'in, etc., from Abdul Malik bin Muslim bin Salam al-Hanafi Abu Salam, they write: [قال ابن عبد البر في الاستيعاب في ترجمة عمرو بن ميمون الأودى: عبد الملك بن مسلم وعيسى بن حطان ليسا ممن يحتج بحديثهما، كذا قال، ولم أر له سلفاً في ذكره عن عبد الملك هذا]
Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Al-Isti'ab in the biography of Amr bin Maymun al-Awadi that Abdul Malik bin Muslim and Isa bin Hattan are not such that their hadith should be used as evidence. Similarly, he said this, but I have not seen such a statement about Abdul Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, from the Salaf.
Reference: (Tahdhib: p.425 vol.6)
Consider carefully, in what context should his statement be understood in comparison to the Salaf?
Similarly, in the translation of Marwan bin Muhammad bin Hassan, after quoting the endorsement and praise of the early Imams, he writes:
[وضعفه أبو محمد بن حزم فأخطأ لأنا لا نعلم له سلفاً في تضعيفه إلا ابن قانع وقول ابن قانع غير مقنع]
Imam Ibn Hazm erred in calling him weak, because apart from Ibn Qana'a, no predecessor has declared him weak, and the statement of Ibn Qana'a is not convincing.
Reference: (Tahdheeb: p.96 vol.10)
Here, Ibn Hazm's statement is explicitly declared wrong because he has no predecessor supporting his view; although Ibn Qana'a said this, he is not competent enough in this field to be considered reliable.
Similarly, when Allama Ibn Abdul Barr, may Allah have mercy on him, called a hadith weak, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
[لم أر لابن عبد البر في تضعيفه سلفاً] that there is no predecessor for him in calling it weak.
Reference: (Tahdheeb: p.345 vol.3 translation by Zuhair bin Ubaid)
He further said: This hadith is about the virtue of Friday prayer; it has been narrated by Ibn Majah through another chain, and Ibn Abdul Barr himself said that it has multiple chains, some of which strengthen others.
At these places, the words of Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, that he did not see their predecessors in it, or that there is no predecessor of theirs in it, make it clear that his intention is to refute that position, not merely to inform or report, as the people of Ishraq have stated. As for the matter that Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, himself mentioned the variation in the narration of Hisham in Hadi al-Sari, therefore it is not correct to interpret his statement as a denial, it is requested that the people of Ishraq consider seriously the nature of the variation they mentioned regarding Hisham ibn Urwah and the statement of Imam Ya'qub ibn Shaybah they cited. This statement has also been mentioned by Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, in
Reference: Tahdhib (p.45 vol.11)
. If this is the basis of the variation, then what justification remains for Hafiz Ibn al-Qattan, may Allah have mercy on him, to say [لم نره فى ذلك سلفا] in Tahdhib itself?Not only that, but in the same commentary, did this sentence also not escape the notice of the Ahl al-Ishraq in Hisham's translation that [وقد احتج بهشام جميع الأئمة] all the Imams of Hadith agree on the use of Hisham's hadiths for argumentation. After all, what does this absolute agreement regarding Mukhtalat mean? Not only that, in the same commentary under [فصل فى تمييز أسباب الطعن فى المذكورين]
Reference: (p.464)
, there is mention of Hisham ibn Urwah. And it is stated as [ذكر بالتدليس أو الإرسال] that criticism was made against Hisham on the basis of tadlees (concealment) or isnaad (chain of transmission) being mursal (interrupted).Consider carefully: After all, why did they not mention the reason for the confusion regarding Hisham? This also supports the fact that they do not consider Hisham to be Mukhtalat. Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, narrated a hadith with the chain [أبو أسامة حماد بن أسامة عن هشام عن عروة عن عائشة رضي الله عنها]
Reference: (2563)
mentioned in [کتاب المکاتب، باب استعانة المكاتب وسؤاله الناس]. Imam Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, objected to one phrase in it by saying that Hisham is unique in it, but Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:[وأثبت الرواية آخرون وقالوا هشام ثقة حافظ والحديث متفق على صحته فلا وجه لرده]
Other scholars have declared it authentic and sound, stating that Hisham is trustworthy and a Hafiz, and there is consensus on the authenticity of the hadith; therefore, there is no reason to reject it.
Reference: (Fath al-Bari: p.191 vol.5)
Consider that this chain is exactly the same as that of Ghinā al-Jāritayn. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned Hisham's tadlis and isrāl and its alteration, and he could have supported Imam Shafi'i, but he did not do so at all. Rather, he did not consider Imam Shafi'i's differing opinion to be contradictory to consensus. However, among the earlier scholars, there is no disagreement regarding the authenticity of the hadith of Ghinā al-Jāritayn. It is only the people of Ishraq who, due to their enlightenment and opposition to the position, consider it weak. Hisham has also been held accountable, as has Hammad ibn Asama. Glory be to You, this is a great slander.
Regarding the alteration in Hisham, the Ahl al-Ishraq have also stated that: Imam Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, disagreed with the idea that the alteration in Hisham's memory had reached the level of confusion, however, he did accept the fact of alteration itself.
Reference: (Reference: Mizan, Ishraq: p.59)
Dear sir! What is this alteration that Hafiz Dhahabi accepted, and what kind is it? His words are:
[نعم الرجل تغير قليلا ولم يبق حفظه كهو في حال الشبيبة فنسى بعض محفوظه أو وهم، فكان ماذا ! أهو معصوم من النسيان]
Yes, a person does experience some alteration, and his retention and control are not the same as they were in the prime of youth, so he forgets some memories or has doubts about them. Then what happened? Is he free from forgetfulness?
Reference: (Mizan: p.301 vol.4)
In old age, this "alteration," which is at the level of doubt and forgetfulness, is not the technical "alteration" meant here at all. Rather, he further clarifies that [ومثل هذا يقع لمالك ولشعبة ولوكيع ولكبار الثقات] this situation also occurs to Imam Malik, Imam Shu’bah, Imam Waki’, and other great trustworthy scholars.
Reference: (Mizan: p.302 vol.4)
Shall we say that these gentlemen also suffered from the "disease" of "Taghayyur" (change)? If not, then why is Hisham singled out? Why is the drum of his "Taghayyur" being beaten? Two books are well-known regarding the mutaghayyirīn and mukhtaliṭīn (those who changed or mixed narrations). One is by Allama Ibrahim al-Halabi, who died in 841 AH, titled
Reference: Al-Ightibat biman Rama bil-Ikhtilāṭ
. He quoted Allama Ibn Qattan's statement about Hisham ibn Urwah, but also cited Hafiz Dhahabi's refutation, thus clarifying the matter. The second is by Allama Ibn al-Kayyāl, who died in 939 AH, titled
Reference: Al-Kawākib al-Nīrāt
. In it, he did not mention Hisham at all, so attributing technical "Taghayyur" or "Ikhtilāṭ" to him is absolutely incorrect.In this last period, when he came to Kufa for the third time, Waki', Ibn Namir, and Muhadhir heard from him, and during this period he was negligent in narrating from his father. Imam Ya'qub ibn Shaybah said:
[والذى نرى أن هشاماً تسهل لأهل العراق أنه كان لا يحدث عن أبيه إلا بما سمعه منه فكان تسهل أنه أرسل عن أبيه مما كان يسمعه من غير أبيه عن أبيه]
In our opinion, Hisham gave the people of Iraq the impression that he only transmitted those narrations from his father which he had heard directly from him. His carelessness was that he also transmitted narrations attributed to his father which he had not heard directly from him, but indirectly.
Reference: (Tahzeeb: p.45 vol.11)
This is the original situation according to Imam Ya'qub bin Shaybah's view, which arose after Hisham went to Iraq, and this is the situation described in Tahzib as follows: Hisham came to Kufa three times. The first time, he explicitly stated hearing (sama') in the narrations of his father and his teacher. The second time he came, he explicitly stated hearing from his father, and when he came the third time, [ابی عن عائشہ] he did not explicitly state hearing from his father. This is the third occasion about which Imam Ya'qub said that after coming to Iraq, he became negligent and narrated from his father those reports which he had not heard directly. That is, this form of isnaad with mursal and tadlis occurred on the third visit. In the first and second visits, he explicitly stated hearing in the narration of his father Urwah. This clarification also removes the misunderstanding of the Ahl al-Ishraq that the narrations of Waki', Ibn Numayr, and Muhadhir are only from the period of change in memorization, which they have elaborated at length in
Reference: Ishraq (pp. 58-59)
.The author had previously stated that Hisham's narration pertains to the second and third times, but after comparing with the second statement of Imam Ya'qub, may Allah have mercy on him, it becomes clear that this narration relates to the third time, not the first or second, because in the first and second instances he explicitly mentions hearing from his father, as his words are: [وقدم الثانية فكان يقول أخبرني أبي] but in the third instance, he does not explicitly mention hearing. And this is what Imam Ya'qub, may Allah have mercy on him, stated: that in the end he did not explicitly mention hearing from his father. Therefore, this narration pertains to the last time.
One objection regarding Hisham is that he is a Mudallis. The summary of what we have stated about him is as follows:
① According to the majority, the narration of Mudallis or Mukhtalit in the Sahihayn is authentic; the accusation of tadlis or mixing on the narrator is not a matter of dispute, except where conclusive evidence proves discontinuity.
② The accusation of tadlees (concealment) against Hisham is not correct, as Hafiz Salahuddin Kekaldi and Hafiz Al-Alai have stated. Based on the statement of Imam Ya'qub, Allama Ibn al-Araqi (may Allah have mercy on him) and Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) have called him a mudallis, but their reasoning is not correct in light of the clarifications of Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) and Darqutni (may Allah have mercy on him).
③ If Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) has declared him a mudallis, then he counted him among the first category of mudalliseen, about whom he himself clarified that their tadlees is very rare; rather, most have permitted tadlees through isnaad 'irsal and have called him a mudallis.
Our requests are titled "The Traditions of Mudallis in the Two Sahihs," which consist of pages 28 to 33 of
Reference: Ishraq
. Now let us examine the new concerns of the people of Ishraq. It has been stated that the author has outright refused to consider Hisham as a Mudallis in the recent article. If the respected Maulana does not consider this disrespectful, we would like to turn back and ask him that if, in his view, Hisham is not a Mudallis, then why did he refer to this unrelated rule to classify his munn'an traditions as connected, that the 'Ananah of Mudallis in the Two Sahihs is [محمول علی السماع]?
Reference: (Ishraq: p.61)
Forgetfulness is inherent in human nature. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said: Adam, peace be upon him, experienced forgetfulness, and his progeny will also be afflicted by it.
Reference: (Tirmidhi: 3076)
Therefore, the people of insight should keep in mind that there is no dispute regarding their admonition on such a mistake, and they are to be thanked for it. However, they themselves should be just in judging whether I did not refute what they had stated based on the reference of
Reference: Ma'rifat al-Uloom by al-Hakim (p.104)
to label Hisham as a mudallis and to disconnect his narration from that of his father. And since we have already refuted the basis on which Imam al-Hakim counted them among the mudallis, how is the claim that Hisham is not a mudallis new and "irrelevant"? The people of insight eventually acknowledged our correction that there was no point of disagreement regarding Hisham’s hearing from his father, although they admitted this only after Mr. Iftikhar Tabassum explained it to them. But Imam al-Hakim’s reasoning for Hisham’s tadlis based on this narration, and our subsequent denial of tadlis, what else is it if not a contradiction?The second point mentioned is that "Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, and Darqatni, may Allah have mercy on him, etc., have described the form of connection and transmission caused by the temporary mental states affecting the narrator, which is absolutely correct in its place. But the question is that what Imam Ya'qub, may Allah have mercy on him, and Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, are clearly and explicitly indicating, which is completely different from the form described by Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, and cannot be attributed to it in any way. If this method of conduct is called tadlis according to the statement of Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, then along with the discontinuity of the narration, Hisham's personality itself becomes defective. If it is not attributed to technical tadlis, then it is certainly proven that he habitually and customarily adopted the method of transmission. In summary
Reference: (Ishraq:61-62-63)
In this discussion, disregarding the sarcastic and critical remarks made by the people of Ishraq, we have presented the summary of their statements in their own words. We have not mentioned the statements of Imam Ya'qub bin Shaibah because they have already been cited earlier and we have also provided clarification regarding them. As for the matter that the statements of Imam Ya'qub bin Shaibah and Imam Muslim are completely different:
First: The question is, what is the difference between the two? The only difference is that Imam Ya'qub, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned this case after Hisham went to Iraq, that at that time he would narrate such hadiths which he had not directly heard from his father by attributing them to his father. Whereas Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, kept this case general and mentioned this practice not only in the narration from the father but also in the higher chain of transmission, and he gave examples of this practice. Among those examples, he mentioned that Ayyub Sakhtiyani, Ibn Mubarak, Waki', Ibn Numayr, etc., narrate a hadith on the authority of Hisham from Urwah from Aisha. Whereas Laith ibn Sa'd, Dawud al-Attar, Humayd al-Aswad, Wahib ibn Khalid, and Abu Usamah narrate it on the authority of Hisham through Uthman ibn Urwah from Urwah from Aisha. Consider that both chains of transmission do not consist of Hisham’s students from Medina; the people of Ashraq perhaps, based on Imam Ya'qub’s statement, consider it an Iraqi narration and regard it as Hisham’s alteration. They even consider the first chain as a result of Hisham’s tadlis (concealment). But Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, neither makes this distinction nor calls Hisham a mudallis (one who practices tadlis) on this basis. Rather, he attributes it to the isnad being mursal (disconnected) and to Hisham’s natural condition. If the people of Ashraq would set aside their emotions and reflect on the examples given by Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, they might not find any fundamental difference between his and Imam Ya'qub’s positions.
Secondly: What conclusion is drawn from the statement of Imam Ya'qub, may Allah have mercy on him? It is exactly what Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said: [هذا هو التدليس] from which the people of Ishraq have, in their emotions, issued this verdict that this also makes Hisham's personality defective as a narrator. Fine! Suppose Hisham is considered "defective" in this regard, but ask Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, what kind of "defect" this is? We have already stated that he counted Hisham in the first category in Tabaqat al-Mudallisīn and An-Nukat, whose tadlis (obscuring the chain) is rare, and his isnaad (chain) is considered tadlis by concession. He said that the tadlis of the narrators of the second category was considered possible by the Imams, so what remains of the position of tadlis of Hisham of the first category? In Taqreeb also, he said __ARABIC_47, how far is Hisham's 'habit' in Iraq from the decision of ARABIC_48__ based on it. Rather, in
Reference: Hadi as-Sari Muqaddimah Fath al-Bari (p.464)
, while mentioning the reasons for criticism on Bukhari's narrators, the defect mentioned about Hisham is [ذكر بالتدليس أو الإرسال] that he has tadlis or isnaad defect, what happened to [أو الإرسال] here? It is as if the same thing that was said about the first category of mudallisīn in An-Nukat. Therefore, if the people of Ishraq consider Hisham "defective," we cannot stop them from this, rather we consider this their compulsion, but Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, does not consider him such a "defective" narrator in any case.Thirdly: Allama Abdul Rahman Al-Mualimi, may Allah have mercy on him, also stated that [والتحقيق أنه لم يدلس قط] the research shows that Hisham is not a mudallis at all, and regarding the case of Sahih Muslim, he also said the same thing we mentioned, that Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, did not declare Hisham a mudallis despite this method. Rather, he also stated that such narrations in which Hisham did this are rare, and among them are trustworthy narrators like his brother Uthman and Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman bin Naufal, the orphan of Urwah, who is the son of Urwah [لاشک فیہ], about whom there is no doubt.
Reference: (Al-Tanqil: p.503-504 vol.2)
Therefore, when he omits even such a trustworthy narrator like Uthman, the objection of discontinuity carries no weight.
Fourthly: Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, based on the statement of Imam Ya'qub, may Allah have mercy on him, says [ربما دلس] and counts him among the first category of mudallis (those who practice tadlees). Their tadlees is rare, or their isnaad (chain of narration) is considered tadlees. This form of tadlees or isnaad was rare in any case, but the ruling of the Ahl al-Ishraq is that Hisham had adopted this method habitually and regularly. Has any muhaddith declared him as one who frequently practices isnaad or tadlees? Justice demands that if Hisham used to send narrations habitually or regularly, would Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, attribute this 'habit' to the natural excitement and contraction of temperament? According to Imam Muslim, a mursal (disconnected) narration is rejected; what meaning does it have to defend this 'habit' of his? From our clarification, the true nature of the baseless objections of the Ahl al-Ishraq becomes clear, and it is established that Hisham is neither a mudallis nor are his numerous narrations from the sheikhs disconnected according to the muhaddithin. The suspicion of discontinuity is created by the Ahl al-Ishraq, not by the noble muhaddithin. This is why they accept his disconnected narrations in the Sahih collections.
The hadith of Ghunaya Jaritin is also narrated from Urwah by Imam Zahri, and among Imam Zahri's students, only Ishaq bin Rashid mentions the words [فسبهما وخرق دفيهما] in this narration. However, these words are questionable because there is debate about Ishaq bin Rashid's narrations from Imam Zahri. Even Imam Yahya bin Ma'in, may Allah have mercy on him, said that [ليس هو في الزهرى بذاک اور امام محمد بن یحییٰ الذہلی], which is well-known among the muhaddithin for being specific to Imam Zahri's narrations. He states: [هو مضطرب الحديث فى حديث الزهرى]. Imam Nasai, may Allah have mercy on him, also did not consider his narrations from Zahri to be strong. For this reason, Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, did not take any narration from him in which he was unique in narrating from Zahri; rather, he narrated it in conjunction. When a trustworthy narrator narrates from such a narrator, about whom the muhaddithin have debated, and he is unique in this narration or in mentioning any addition, then his uniqueness will not be acceptable. The Ahl al-Ishraq, in their traditional commentary on our observations, regardless of what they said, summarized that: since some other narrations of Ishaq contain doubts, how does it necessarily follow that he was also mistaken in the addition under discussion? We had pointed out that the only evidence for this is that none of Zahri's other students who transmitted this narration mention this phrase. In our view, the same principle should apply to the addition [وليستا بمغنيتين] narrated by Abu Usamah among Hisham's students.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.56-57)
It is requested of the Ahl-e-Ishraq to judge fairly whether the position of Ishaq ibn al-Zuhri among the noble hadith scholars is the same as that of "Abu Usama from Hisham." The answer is absolutely not. We hope that if they refrain from protecting their particular viewpoint and judge fairly, they will also conclude that the positions of the two are not the same. The chain of narration of "Abu Usama from Hisham" is unanimously considered authentic; in fact, the unique narrations of Abu Usama from Hisham have also been declared sound and correct by the hadith scholars. As we have previously discussed with references, however, the hadith scholars have only spoken about Ishaq’s narration from Imam Zuhri, and Imam Bukhari did not accept such unique narrations from him at all. Therefore, placing both on the same scale and objecting to Abu Usama from Hisham’s uniqueness in the context of Ishaq ibn al-Zuhri’s uniqueness is nothing but injustice. Rather, this method of research is a bad habit and a pretext for many excuses.
In the narration of Hazrat Aisha Siddiqah (may Allah be pleased with her) regarding these two songs, one point of discussion was the meaning of the word [جاریتین]. We stated that Hafiz Ibn Jauzi, Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah, Allama Nawawi, Hafiz Ibn Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on them, interpret it to mean young girls, whereas the people of Ishraq insist that it refers to "servant girls," not only that, but they also call them "professional singers" and "skilled artists of singing." They establish the title "Music on Eid" on this hadith and issue a fatwa permitting "music," considering it among the "permissible natural things." This entire detail has already been made known to the esteemed readers.
In support of interpreting "Jareetin" as "bondwomen," it was first stated that "Hafiz Ibn Hajar, the commentator of Sahih Bukhari, has understood it to mean bondwomen." We have pointed out that even though he considers them bondwomen, he does not classify them as professional singers. The recent statement clarifies that we have never attributed the classification of these bondwomen as professional singers to Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.65)
Sir! If it was not said in clear terms, then what is the meaning and purpose of your statement that the possibility of singing as a profession applies not to little girls, but rather to slave girls? And Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, probably took it to mean slave girls based on these very indications. The matter is clear that when you accept the connection of "singing as a profession" only with slave girls, then why would those slave girls not be professional singers? What is the difference between "singing as a profession" and "professional singers"? To accept those singing "slave girls," but to deny their being "professional singers," is a strange intellectual contradiction or confusion.
Let us assume that the Ahl al-Ishraq did not attribute the status of 'professional singers' to those slave girls according to Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, but what is the meaning of their negation of the slave girls being professionals? The recent statement in this regard is that their negation means: 'No woman, according to the well-known method of singers, with melody and modulation of voice, and through obscene poetry, tries to create a state of excitement and desire.' They do not deny that these two slave girls were regular and usual singers.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.66)
Let us assume that those were 'girls who regularly sang,' but they were not singing with the 'well-known methods of singers, with melody and modulation of voice.' But first, look back at how this hadith was used as evidence from the 'singing of those girls.' Initially, this hadith was titled 'Music on Eid.' It should be clarified whether music refers to ordinary singing or to singing with proper art and technique, including melody and modulation of voice.
In this context, it was stated that the girls who sang were skilled in the art of singing. It was also mentioned that it is necessary to understand that by this, only those girls are meant who were known as skilled singers.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.20 March 2004)
This point was reiterated in
Reference: Ishraq (p. 28 March 2006)
and a strong defense of this stance was made. We had stated that they recited the verses in a simple voice, upon which it was angrily asked what basis there is for interpreting "taghniyan" as "she was reciting the verses in a simple voice"? Who has given us or you the authority to alter the meaning, application, and reference of an established word and assign it new meanings?
Reference: (Ishraq: p. 39 March 2006)
When the people of Ishraq cite the song of the slaves as evidence for the permissibility of 'music' and interpret it not as a simple voice but as singing like a 'professional singer,' then why do they now deny our interpretation that it is not wisdom for the people of Ishraq to feed their chewed morsels into the mouth of Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him?
Reference: (Al-I'tisam wa Ishraq: p. 43 June 2007)
Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, interprets "Jariyat" as slave girls and does not consider them professional singers, but the Ahl-e-Ishraq consider them professional singers and insist on their being slave girls based on the statement of Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him. Along with this, they say, "We have never attributed the statement of considering these slave girls as professional singers to Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him." What shall we call this cunningness!
However, if they have changed their stance and accepted both statements of Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, then this change is welcome. This nullifies the justification for "music on Eid" and the display of "expert professional singers" in vain.
As for the one who believes in [وليستا بمغنيتين], his intention is to negate the possibility of these slave girls being professional singers, and this possibility does not arise for small girls. The possibility of a professional singer is more likely for adult girls, whether free or slave girls, and he negates this.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.66)
The point to consider is whether the argument for the permissibility of music is based on the two women or on the 'singing'? Obviously, the basis for the permissibility of singing is their singing, not merely that they were "dancing girls." If they were "dancing girls," does that invalidate the argument for the permissibility of singing? And can't ten or twelve-year-old girls engage in this pastime? Isn't the display of this pastime by children still present in the media today? Therefore, when the argument is made for singing, the narrator has negated that it was the songs of a professional singer. Explain what the objection to this is?
Then it is strange that "the probability of being a professional singer is more likely for adult girls, whether they are free or slaves." Now, where did this probability of "adult free girls" come from regarding these professional singers? Until now, he had been writing that "in Arab society, it was the slaves who used to adopt this art as a profession."
Reference: (Ishraq: p.36 September 2006)
Therefore, the possibility of "free adult girls" here is definitely not correct; this method was for girls or slaves, as we have already explained earlier in this series of articles.
It is also necessary to clarify here that regarding جاریتین, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said that it refers to slaves. He also wrote about these slaves that one of them was Hamamah, and in Al-Asabah he mentioned her by the title Hamamah Al-Mughniyah. The other was named Zainab, as he mentioned from Al-Muhamali in Fath Al-Bari, and in the same references
Reference: Ishraq (p.66)
, these names are cited as evidence of their being slaves.It should be noted that we have already commented on the first narration in an earlier article. The silence of the people of Ishraq on this apparently indicates their acceptance of it; if they had further discussed it from their perspective, it would have given us an opportunity to present more points as well.
As for the narration about Zainab, its chain of transmission has been mentioned by Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, in Al-Isabah in the biography of Zainab Al-Ansariyyah. However, that chain itself is not reliable; one of its narrators is Safwan bin Hubairah, whom Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, classified as weak in hadith.
Reference: (Taqreeb: p.153)
And Allama Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, said about him "La Yu’raf" (unknown).
Reference: (Al-Mughni: p.309 vol.1), and in Mizan (p.316 vol.2)
his hadith is declared rejected.Another narrator is Abu Al-Asbagh, who was mentioned by Imam Bukhari
Reference: Al-Kuniyah (p.5)
, and later scholars also mentioned him based on Bukhari, but no one authenticated him. He took this narration from "Jameelah," who is not mentioned anywhere else. Now judge fairly, when one narrator is weak or unknown, and the second and third are also not well-known, how valid is it to use such a narration as evidence!Therefore, when the foundation itself is not correct, trusting it is also not correct. We have previously criticized the other narrations in this chain, about which the people of insight have deemed silence appropriate. Whether it is Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, or Allama Kashmiri, if they have taken the meaning as slave girls, there is no strong and reliable basis for it. Therefore, we will say that the Throne was established and then inscribed.
At the end, we find it appropriate to present a reference from a trusted person among the people of insight, Mr. Muhammad Rafi Mufti Sahib, and this is merely so that
Perhaps my words may settle in your heart.
Accordingly, he has translated the narration of Hazrat Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, as follows:
When Abu Bakr Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, wanted to forbid those girls who were beating the drums, the Prophet ﷺ stopped Abu Bakr Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, from forbidding them.
Reference: (Issue of the Picture: p.83, published by Al-Mawrid)
Therefore, if this matter of the "heart" has already been uttered from the mouth, then according to شهد شاهد من أهلها there should be no barrier to accepting it.
With this, we conclude our observations and pray to Allah Almighty to keep us steadfast on the same straight path on which the noble Prophets, the truthful ones, the martyrs, and the pious predecessors were. Ameen.
خادم العلم والعلماء
Irshad-ul-Haq Asri Afina
