This excerpt is taken from Sheikh Irshad-ul-Haq Asri's book Islam and Music: A Review of Ishraq's Objections.
The people of Ishraq have made additional comments on our previous clarifications in Al-I'tisam. Our observations regarding this are as follows.
In Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, it is narrated from Umm al-Mu'minin Sayyida Aisha Siddiqah (may Allah be pleased with her) that on the occasion of Eid, in the presence of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, 'two female slaves' played the drum and sang, and both of them were not professional singers. Regarding the last sentence of this hadith, the scholars of Ishraq insist that this is a mistake or an interpolation by the narrator and is not a statement of Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her). This discussion has been ongoing for some time among the readers of Al-I'tisam, Muhaddith, and Ishraq. In the issue of
Reference: (Ishraq, Volume 19, Issue 6, June 2007)
, the same topic was again elaborated upon, and in response to the objections we had presented against their stance, they published them in the same issue in their usual style, for which we are grateful. Regarding what they have now stated in their reply, we present our observations to the esteemed readers.The scholars of illumination insist that in صحیحین in [قالت: وليستا بمغنيتين], the Mother of the Believers, may Allah be pleased with her, said: The two singing slave girls were not professional singers. This statement was fabricated by Abu Usama Hamad bin Usama from his own imagination and attributed to Hazrat Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her. The detailed response to this has already been presented in بحمد اللہ 'Al-I'tisam'. Nevertheless, we have also stated that undoubtedly, on some occasions, a narrator may mistakenly include a phrase in the narration, but the noble scholars of hadith have introduced the term "Mudraj" for this type of narration, and they have established principles and rules for it and have written entire books on the subject. To disregard these principles and rules and to label such phrases in hadith as Mudraj merely based on personal liking or disliking is a result of desire rather than adherence to principles. However, it is very regrettable that despite our clarification, the people of illumination boldly say:
If a narrator, due to a mistake, includes something in the text of the narration which he believes to be part of the original narration, then neither is it correct to ignore the evidence and indications that point to the addition being "inserted" just by looking at his clarification, nor is it permissible to reject his addition and question the narrator's truthfulness, justice, and honesty. In his recent article, the respected Maulana did not say anything in response to this, from which it would probably not be wrong to infer that he has agreed with our request.
Reference: (اشراق:ص47)
Whether we attribute their decision to human error and forgetfulness or consider it a consequence of the mistakes and faults of the people of illumination. It is surprising that the people of illumination themselves published the article of Haichamdan in the same issue, and on page
Reference: 35
of the same issue, there is a sufficient and satisfactory response to the claim of the sentence being "included," yet despite this, it is boldly stated that "Respected Maulana did not say anything in response to it. سبحان الله من لا ينسىWith apologies to the esteemed readers! Let us reiterate our point: We acknowledge that there are many such examples in the Hadith collections, the scholars of Hadith have introduced such narrations under the term "Mudraj," and have established principles and rules as evidence for inclusion, and have compiled such narrations in permanent books to identify them. It is regrettable that deviating from these rules and declaring any statement as Mudraj without evidence, merely to align with (or rather, in opposition to) one's own thinking, is a great audacity. The respected Mr. Ammar Khan, who has supported this discussion in "Ishraq" and is backing it with ماشاء اللہ "scholarly points," is the son of the respected ancestor, Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Sahib, who wrote:
The principle of the honorable Muhaddithin is that a sentence which is with the hadith is considered connected. Mere possibility cannot establish inclusion, and the rules that the Muhaddithin have stated for proving inclusion are: the included part appears separately in another narration, or the narrator explicitly states that it is included, or one of the Imams who received the information clarifies it, or it is impossible for the statement to be attributed to the Prophet ﷺ.
Reference: (Taskin al-Sudoor: p.180)
What Maulana Safdar Sahib has said is detailed in the books of Usul al-Hadith. In the light of this principle, has this part appeared separately in any other narration? Absolutely not. Has any narrator or Muhaddith explicitly stated that this was included in the hadith due to the mistake of a certain narrator? Not at all. Rather, for eleven hundred years, all Muhaddithin and scholars have accepted it as authentic and have used it for reasoning, but now the people of Ishraq have revealed this secret that it was included in the hadith due to the mistake of the narrator.
Justice requires that despite so much clarification, to say that the respected Maulana did not say anything in response to this matter is a deviation from the truth and mere childish consolation.
The people of Ishraq could neither prove nor ان شاءاللہ that this phrase was stated separately as "Mudarraj" in such and such a book or that such and such a hadith scholar confirmed its being Mudarraj. Declaring it "Mudarraj" merely out of dislike is no service to knowledge and art.
We had stated that this narration is from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Some scholars have scrutinized and critically examined all the narrations of the Sahihayn, but except for the people of Ishraq, no scholar has criticized this narration so far. It is as if the entire Ummah agrees on the authenticity of this narration, but the people of Ishraq do not agree due to their particular disposition. We are not at all surprised by their stance and opinion. They do not agree with the Muslim Ummah on many collective issues. If they criticize the agreed-upon narration under discussion based on their viewpoint, then there is nothing surprising for us in that. It was said about this narration from Sahih that the criterion for determining the authenticity or weakness of any hadith is the principles of hadith criticism or the statements of the Imams of the field? After all, on what basis do the Imams of the field decide the authenticity or weakness of a narration? If their decisions are based on evidence and proofs rather than revelation and inspiration, then why can their opinions not be disagreed with in the light of evidence? Ibn al-Sabbagh has said that if a narrator adds something, while the narrators who narrate without it are a group whose being mistaken is unlikely, then the addition will be considered unreliable. Ibn al-Sam'ani also said the same. We have, based on this principle, considered the phrase added by Abu Usama [قالت وليستا بمغنيتين] in the narration of Hisham as Abu Usama's mistake.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.34 September 2006)
We had stated that this is not an absolutely established principle among the Muhaddithin; it is the opinion of Allama Ibn al-Sabbagh (may Allah have mercy on him) and Allama Ibn al-Sam'ani (may Allah have mercy on him). On the contrary, the majority of Muhaddithin and Faqihs absolutely accept the addition of a trustworthy narrator, and some have even claimed consensus that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is unanimously accepted. Meanwhile, the Imams of Hadith such as Imam Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi, Imam Yahya ibn Saeed al-Qattan, Imam Ahmad, Imam Yahya ibn Ma'in, Imam Ali ibn Madini, Imam Bukhari, Imam Abu Zur'ah, Imam Abu Hatim, Imam Nasai, Imam Darqutni (may Allah have mercy on them) state that when an addition (other narrations) contradicts, preference is given, to the extent that accepting it would necessarily negate the other narration. That is, if the addition contradicts other narrations, it is not accepted; if it does not contradict, then it is accepted. This is the ruling of the great Muhaddithin. Compared to the group, there is undoubtedly a possibility of error in the narration of one individual, but this is only when he is not the most memorized and reliable, and his addition contradicts the other narration. According to this principle, the Muhaddithin have accepted the narration of Abu Usamah and have declared it authentic. It is clear that the statement that both were not maghniyah (singers) does not contradict any narration.
In response to this, it has now been stated: This is a very poor interpretation of the principles of the earlier hadith scholars. The ruling of considering an addition as doubtful does not depend on it being contradictory to the original narration; if there are other indications and evidences that the addition is based on doubt, then the point of contradiction becomes irrelevant, and the senior hadith scholars reject such additions regardless. The commentator of Tirmidhi, Maulana Abdul Rahman Mubarakpuri, may Allah have mercy on him, explaining the approach of the hadith scholars, says: If you ask why the earlier hadith scholars, such as Imam Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Ma'in, Bukhari, Abu Dawood, Abu Hatim, Abu Ali, Nisaburi, Hakim, and Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on them, did not accept the addition of [ثم لا يعود] in the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud, the addition of [فصاعدا] in the hadith of Ubada, and the addition of [وإذا قرأ فأنصتوا] in the hadith of Abu Hurairah and Abu Musa Ash'ari? And why did they consider them unreliable? Even though these additions are not contradictory to the original hadith. I would answer that these hadith scholars did not accept these additions because it became clear in the light of evidence that these were the doubts of some narrators, as they have explained and clarified. They did not reject any addition merely because its narrator was unique in transmitting it.
Reference: (Ishraq: pp. 53-54, Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi: p. 85 vol. 2)
Consider this: You said that the people of Ishraq declared with such confidence that according to the same principle, the phrase added by Abu Usama in Hisham's narration was considered a mistake by Abu Usama. Where has that principle gone? In fact, in their response, they did not even mention the names of Allama Ibn Subagh and Allama Ibn Sam'ani to defend it. Rather, the last words of the phrase of Muhaddith Mubarakpuri, which they quoted in support of their new stance, also contradict that "principle," stating that "the Muhaddithin did not reject any addition merely because its narrator was unique in transmitting it." Tell me, does this not contradict the very principle that was cited with great adherence through Allama Ibn Subagh's reference, where it was said, "According to the same principle, we considered Abu Usama's addition a mistake"?
If the inconsistency of their "principle" has become clear to them, it is welcome. Regarding the principle of the scholars of hadith about the increase in trustworthiness, which we presented from
Reference: Tadreeb al-Rawi
, the people of insight have stated that this is a very poor interpretation of the scholars of hadith's principle. Then, in their own opinion, the position mentioned in the interpretation of the scholars of hadith and the passage quoted from Muhaddith Mubarakpuri's Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi in support of it also contains deception.The detail of this summary is that Allama Naimvi, may Allah have mercy on him, stated in Al-Ta'leeq al-Hasan that "an increase in the number of trustworthy narrators beyond the most reliable or in opposition to a group, whether it contradicts another narration or not, is anomalous and not acceptable." In refutation of this position of Allama Naimvi, the commentator of Tirmidhi, Maulana Abdul Rahman Muhaddith Mubarakpuri, may Allah have mercy on him, said: that this definition of anomalous is not correct; rather, an increase in trustworthy narrators is acceptable unless there is some indication suggesting that this increase is doubtful. Supporting this position, he stated that there are many hadiths in Sahih Bukhari where there is an increase in trustworthy narrators and these do not contradict the narration; this increase was not reported by only one group or more trustworthy narrators. Some Muhaddithin have objected to this increase, but the researchers have responded to those who object to this kind of increase. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, in response to the narrations of Sahih Bukhari that were objected to, said that the narrations subject to objection are those in which a trustworthy narrator has added some extra words, and these words were not reported by one group or more trustworthy narrators. In such a case, declaring the narration defective is not a valid reason unless it is established by strong evidence that this increase is fabricated. If such is the case, then it is a valid reason as mentioned in
Reference: Hadith number 34 (Introduction to Fath al-Bari: p. 361)
. Similarly, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, also mentioned that Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, objected to a hadith in Sahih Bukhari narrated from Abu Ghassan from Abu Hazim from Sahl bin Sa’d in which [إنما الأعمال بالخواتيم] was added. However, Abdul Aziz bin Abi Hazim, Ya’qub bin Abdul Rahman, and Saeed al-Makhzumi narrate from Abu Hazim and do not mention this phrase. Hafiz Ibn Hajar said that Abu Ghassan is trustworthy and a Hafiz, therefore Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, trusted him, and the acceptance of this type of increase has been transmitted from Allama Ibn al-Turkumani, Allama Zaili, and even Allama Naimvi. After this, Maulana Mubarakpuri, may Allah have mercy on him, quoted the definition of anomalous from the books of Usul al-Hadith and proved his claim, and finally stated what the people of Ishraq have narrated.This makes it as clear as midday that the position which Muhaddith Mubarakpuri, may Allah have mercy on him, refuted from Allama Naimvi, may Allah have mercy on him, is the same position that the Ahl al-Ishraq previously mentioned regarding Allama Ibn Sabagh, may Allah have mercy on him, that if a narrator reports an addition which the Jamaat (majority) did not report, then that addition is unreliable. For this reason, Abu Usama's addition was considered doubtful because he alone reported it against the consensus of the Jamaat. Therefore, it is the excellence of Ahl al-Ishraq to consider the position of Mubarakpuri, may Allah have mercy on him, as their own agreement.
As for the matter that the hadith scholars do not reject a narrator's addition merely because he is unique in transmitting it, rather they investigate further evidence and indications in this regard. And ruling an addition as doubtful does not depend on it contradicting the original narration. If there are other evidences indicating that the addition is doubtful, then the point of contradiction becomes insignificant. Mubarakpuri, may Allah have mercy on him, stated that the addition of [لا يعود] in the narration of Ibn Mas'ud, may Allah be pleased with him, and the addition of [فصاعدا] in the hadith of Ubada, were not accepted despite not contradicting the original hadith. Al-Khal
Reference: (Ishraq: pp. 53-54)
Dear Sir! We had mentioned regarding the addition in Thiqah compared to the Jamaat that in such a case, merely rejecting the addition in Thiqah based on the tradition of the Jamaat is not the principle of the great Muhaddithin; rather, according to them, there must also be a contradiction with the original narration, and there is no contradiction with the original narration in Abu Usamah's addition, therefore this addition is acceptable. As for other indications and evidences, we have not denied them at all. In the words of Muhaddith Mubarakpuri, may Allah have mercy on him, there is a reference to this in Sahih Bukhari with the citation of Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him. And Muhaddith Mubarakpuri, may Allah have mercy on him, also stated that the Muhaddithin have declared the additions in the Mhawwalah narrations as doubtful based on clear evidence. This decision, in any case, belongs to the Imams of Muhaddithin, not to Mubarakpuri Sahib, may Allah have mercy on him, nor to Allama Naimvi, may Allah have mercy on him. Whether the people of Ishraq understand this in their supposed reasoning or not, it is certainly a matter of surprise that the revelation of indications and evidences regarding the doubtfulness of Abu Usamah's addition also came from the people of Ishraq, while the generations after generations who pointed out the indications and evidences remained unaware of it. سبحان الله
We were surprised that it was said that there are almost certain indications of the addition being a suspicion.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.55)
But those "certain indications" mention no other evidence besides the individual narration against the group. So where are these indications? Is the narration of the group the only evidence among the scholars of hadith for accepting or rejecting the addition of a trustworthy narrator, or is there something else as well? The people of Ishraq should consider that what they have written regarding these "certain indications" is nothing other than rejecting the individual narration against the group. And can it not be said about every addition that "this addition is not negligible in terms of semantic importance. Therefore, the addition of the individual is not accepted, and only the narration of the group will be considered reliable." Consider that first, the position taken based on Ibn al-Sabbagh's statement was deviated from; almost the same position was adopted by Allama Naimwi, then the hadith scholar Mubarakpuri, may Allah have mercy on him, followed up on him and accepted it, stating that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is not necessarily rejected if it contradicts the original, rather other indications and evidences are also taken into account for it. They could not mention any "indications" other than the singularity of the narrator, but to give weight to the matter, this "indication" was made: "that the addition is not negligible in terms of semantic importance," yet they did not consider that this indication is related to and ultimately leads back to the singularity of the narrator, and the same can be said about every addition. Therefore, this is not an additional indication at all.Why is the addition of [لا تعد] in the narration of Hazrat Abdullah bin Masood (may Allah be pleased with him) rejected? The hadith scholars generally say: this addition is a misconception of Sufyan Thawri. Imam Abu Hatim stated that except for Sufyan Thawri, no group reports it from Asim with these words. Undoubtedly, this addition is not insignificant in terms of its semantic importance, and the one who narrated it is Imam Sufyan Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him), who is counted among the great scholars of hadith. However, despite this, the senior hadith scholars did not accept this addition. Another indication of its rejection is that the one who narrates from Asim is Abdullah bin Idris, and these words are not found in his book, as Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) clarified in
Reference: Juz' Raf' al-Yadain (p.9)
and said that this is more authentic and preferable because, according to the scholars, the narration from the book is more reliable. This is another "indication" on the basis of which this addition is not accepted. It is regrettable that the proponents of Ishraq claim "definitive indications," but they could not present a single indication other than the uniqueness of the narrator, as we mentioned in the narration of Hazrat Abdullah bin Masood (may Allah be pleased with him). Therefore, this claim of "definitive indications" is merely a facade with no real value.Based on his qualities and ranks, Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) and Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him), in fact all the Muhaddithin, trusted him and considered his hadith authentic. Furthermore, Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated a long narration regarding the inheritance of Hazrat Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him) in کتاب فرض الخمس، باب بركة الغازي في ماله
Reference: (Number:3129)
through the chain of __ARABIC_16, about which Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: ARABIC_17__ I have not seen this narration except through the chain of Abu Usama.
Reference: (Fath al-Bari: p.229 vol.6)
Thus, Abu Usama is unique in narrating in this detailed manner, yet this narration finds a place in Al-Jami' al-Sahih and the Muhaddithin consider it authentic. In fact, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) praised this complete narration in these words: [ما أحسن ما جاء بذلك الحديث وأتمه] how good and complete this narration is.
Reference: (Sharh al-‘Ilal by Ibn Rajab: p.689 vol.1)
If there were any discussion about Abu Usama's narrations from Hisham or his unique narrations, the honorable muhaddithin, may Allah have mercy on them, would not have authenticated and praised such types of hadiths. However, the Ahl al-Ishraq did not consider our fundamental point worthy of attention. Nevertheless, regarding the same matter, we also stated that Abu Usama appears alone in printed books; the hadiths are preserved, but not all of their chains are preserved. Regarding this, the Ahl al-Ishraq said that this point in itself is a reasonable point, and we also accept this possibility and probability. But in the world of knowledge and research, decisions are not made based on possibilities and probabilities, rather they are made in the light of existing and available evidence.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.55)
