This excerpt is taken from Sheikh Irshad-ul-Haq Asri's book Islam and the Criticism of Ishraq on Music.
Second Objection: The scholars of Ishraq argued that in the narration [قالت وليستا بمغنيتين], i.e., Umm al-Mu'minin Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said: that these two were not professional singers. Regarding this statement, the viewpoint of the people of Ishraq is that this is not the actual saying of Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her); it is the conjecture of later narrators which they included in the text.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.30 March 2006)
We have clarified the flaw in their concern in بحمد اللہ الاعتصام, now the recent statement they have made, regardless of the length of explanation and eloquence in which we acknowledge their expertise, can be summarized as follows: In the collection of hadith, there are countless examples where a narrator relates a tradition and includes in its text something which he mistakenly considers part of the original tradition. In such a case, if at some point he attributes the phrase he added to the upper narrator by calling it [قال] or [قالت], there is nothing surprising in that.
Reference: (اشراق:ص32 ستمبر2006ء)
We acknowledge that there are many such examples in the Hadith collections, where the scholars of Hadith have introduced such narrations under the term "Mudarraj," and have established principles and rules as evidence for inclusion. They have compiled such narrations in permanent books to identify these narrations. It is regrettable that deviating from these rules and declaring any statement as Mudarraj without evidence, merely to align with one's own thoughts, is a great audacity. The respected Mr. Ammar Khan Nasir, who has assisted in this discussion and supported it with ماشاءاللہ "scholarly points," is the descendant of the honorable Maulana Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Sahib, who wrote:
The principle of the esteemed Muhaddithin is that a phrase accompanying a hadith is considered connected, and mere possibility cannot establish its inclusion. The rules established by the Muhaddithin to prove inclusion are that 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: the details of this are present in the books of Usul al-Hadith. In 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 a narrator’s mistake? Not at all. Rather, for eleven hundred years, all Muhaddithin and scholars have accepted it as authentic and have used it as evidence, but now the people of Ishraq have discovered this secret that it was included in the hadith due to a narrator’s mistake.
In this context, respected Ammar Sahib, adding color to his point, quoted a phrase of mine in his agreement that while commenting on a narration in Tazeeh al-Kalam
Reference: (Tazeeh al-Kalam: p.124 vol.1)
, I wrote:Some scholars have accepted these words as authentic merely because they are in Sahih Bukhari, but this is not correct, whereas in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim, the two Sheikhs also include such hadiths which, in terms of the intended meaning, are authentic, i.e., (من حیث المجموع), although some part of it may not meet their standards of authenticity, and rather some narrators have a doubt in it. This is not new for those who study Sahihayn with a keen eye.
From this phrase, their point is that when I have accepted the doubt of some narrators in Sahihayn, then why is the doubt of the narrator in the narration under discussion being denied?
But we regret that respected Ammar Sahib did not accurately represent our position. The doubt mentioned by the writer in Sahih Bukhari, is it the understanding explained by the writer, or is the indication of that doubt given by Imam Bukhari himself, Imam Bayhaqi, Allama Ibn al-Qayyim, and Allama Zaili, may Allah have mercy on them? Similarly, mentioning the doubt of some narrators in the two Sahihs is not a sign of a low standard but rather it has been pointed out by the earlier muhaddithin, may Allah have mercy on them.
The discerning speaker, O new beloved, this is the mistake here.
To strengthen their point and decision, it was also stated that the criterion for determining the authenticity or weakness of a hadith is the principles of narrational 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?
Allama Suyuti, may Allah have mercy on him, writes: Ibn al-Sabbagh has said that if a narrator adds something, while the group of narrators who narrate without it are such that it is unlikely for them to be mistaken, or it is not habitually possible for such narrators to be unaware of narrating such a matter, then the addition will be considered unreliable. Ibn al-Sam'ani has also said the same and added that the matter should be such that the motives and reasons for narrating it are also sufficient. Based on this principle, we have considered the sentence added by Abu Usama in the narration of Hisham [قالت وليستا بمغنيتين] as a mistake of Abu Usama.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.34 September 2006)
Undoubtedly, there are principles for evaluating a narration and determining its authenticity or weakness, and it is based on these principles that the Muhaddithin, may Allah have mercy on them, have judged the authenticity or weakness of a hadith. Among those who have made these judgments are some whose prudence, caution, and thorough investigation are accepted by all. Then, why should one rely solely on their judgment? Later scholars also examined these narrations further according to the same principles and confirmed their conformity. The earlier scholars had a vast collection of hadiths memorized; they knew multiple chains of transmission of each narration by heart, and thus they were the memorizers of millions of hadiths, as recorded in the books of history and biographies.
In contrast, leafing through a few printed books and passing judgment against the decisions of those earlier Muhaddithin is arbitrariness and, according to Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlawi, may Allah have mercy on him, [سبیل المؤمنین] is a deviation. Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
[وليعلم أن تحسين المتأخرين وتصحيحهم لا يوازى تحسين المتقدمين فإنهم كانوا أعرف بحال الرواة لقرب عهدهم بهم، فكانوا يحكمون ما يحكمون به بعد تثبت تام ومعرفة جزئية، أما المتأخرون فليس عندهم من أمرهم غير الأثر بعد العين، فلا يحكمون إلا بعد مطالعة أحوالهم في الأوراق، وأنت تعلم أنه كم من فرق بين المجرب والحكيم، وما يغنى السواد الذى فى البياض عند المتأخرين عما عند المتقدمين من العلم على أحوالهم كالعيان، فإنهم أدركوا الرواة بأنفسهم فاستغنوا عن التساؤل والأخذ عن أفواه الناس، فهؤلاء أعرف الناس فبهم العبرة]
Be well aware that the praise and correction by the later scholars are not equal to the praise and correction by the earlier scholars because the earlier scholars, due to their proximity in time, knew more about the conditions of the narrators. Whatever decision they made, they did so with full caution and after understanding its details. (Unlike the later scholars) they did not make decisions by looking at the conditions of narrators written on papers. And you know the difference between an experienced and a wise person. The knowledge the earlier scholars had to directly assess the narrators is such that the knowledge written in books is of no benefit to the later scholars, because the earlier scholars had direct acquaintance with the narrators and were independent of asking or questioning others; they were the ones who knew the narrators best, therefore their words are the most trustworthy.
Reference: (Faiz al-Bari: p.414 vol.4)
But we have said that the narration under discussion has been accepted as authentic by all, earlier and later scholars alike, except for the people of Ishraq, and whether the principle on which the surgical procedure has now begun was also in their view or not?
As for the principle mentioned, which has been quoted from Allama Ibn Sabagh with reference to
Reference: Tadreeb al-Rawi (p.246 vol.1)
, the people of Ishraq have also caused great confusion regarding this, and this was not at all expected from the respected Ammar Sahib. First, consider that Allama Abu Nasr Ibn al-Sabbagh, whose name is Abdul Sayed bin Muhammad bin Abdul Wahid, died in 477 AH. He is a well-known Shafi'i jurist of the fifth century Hijri, and Ibn al-Sam'ani is later than him. Why did the respected Ammar Sahib only find the principle stated in the fifth century Hijri? Was there no other principle mentioned in Tadreeb al-Rawi that he took the trouble to quote only this one?Whereas the actual fact is that in Tadreeb al-Rawi itself, it is first stated that the majority of jurists and hadith scholars absolutely accept the addition of a trustworthy narrator, and Ibn Tahir has even claimed consensus on this. I wish respected Ammar Sahib had inquired about this issue from his grandfather, Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Sahib, as one would not expect a researcher and critic like him to be unaware of his grandfather’s ruling. However, it is stated that he has cited multiple references in two to two and a half pages, including Tadreeb al-Rawi, and said: The noble hadith scholars, great jurists, and experts in principles have this unanimous, consensus-based, and established rule that when a narrator is trustworthy and a hafiz and he adds something, then absolutely his narration is accepted.
Reference: (Ahsan al-Kalam: p.196 vol.1, 2nd edition)
It is possible, like us, that respected Ammar Sahib may disagree with Dada Jan's claim of "agreement and consensus," but this at least makes clear who and how many hold opinions contrary to Allama Ibn Sibagh and Ibn al-Sam'ani.
Furthermore, in the discussion of Tadrib al-Rawi, after narrating various opinions, Allama Suyuti ultimately quotes Sheikh al-Islam Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him: [والمنقول عن أئمة الحديث المتقدمين كابن مهدي ويحيى القطان وأحمد وابن معين وابن المديني والبخاري وأبي زرعة وأبي حاتم والنسائي والدارقطني وغيرهم اعتبار الترجيح فيما يتعلق بالزيادة المنافية بحيث يلزم من قبولها رد الرواية الأخرى]
That the earlier Imams of Hadith, such as Imam Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi, Imam Yahya ibn Saeed 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, have transmitted that when there is an addition (in other narrations) that contradicts, preference is given to it, to the extent that accepting it necessarily negates the other narration.
Reference: (Tadrib: p.246 vol.1)
(That is) if the addition contradicts other narrations, then it is not acceptable; if it does not contradict, then it is acceptable. This is the ruling of the earlier scholars of hadith, may Allah have mercy on them. There is undoubtedly a possibility of error in the narration of one person as compared to the group, but this is only when that person is not the most reliable and accurate, and his addition contradicts another narration. According to this principle, the scholars of hadith accepted the narration of Abu Usama and considered it authentic; they did not act without principle. This is also because Abu Usama appears alone in printed books; the hadiths are authentic, but not all of their chains are preserved. Then Abu Usama Hamad bin Usama is the one about whom Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: [أبو أسامة ثقة ما كان رواه عن هشام] Abu Usama is trustworthy, as much as he narrates from Hisham.
He also said: No one narrates more from Hisham or narrates better than Abu Usama.
Reference: (Sharh al-‘Ilal by Ibn Rajab: p. 680 vol. 2)
Their specialization in narrating from Hisham was such that they narrated six hundred hadiths from him, about seventy of which are found in Bukhari and Muslim. Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: [كان ثبتاً ما كان أثبته لا يكاد يخطئ] Abu Usama was reliable; he was so reliable that he did not make mistakes.
When asked about their reliability, both Abu Usama and Imam Abu Asim Ad-Dahhak bin Makhlad, Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
Abu Usama is more reliable than a hundred like Abu Asim; Abu Usama was precise and accurate in the book.
It means Imam Abu Usama used to write hadiths, he himself was reliable and his book was authentic. He himself states: I have written one hundred thousand hadiths with these fingers of mine. See:
Reference: (At-Tahdheeb: p.3, vol.2, vol.3, As-Seer: p.278, vol.9, At-Tadhkirah: p.321, vol.1)
etc. Therefore, when he was trustworthy and reliable, foremost in narrating from Hisham, and his book was authentic, this phrase in his narration does not contradict or oppose any other narration. For these very reasons, the noble muhaddithin trusted the narration he presented. But since for the enlightened scholars this phrase is a spiritual poison, they are not ready to accept it as authentic, rather they consider the decision of the muhaddithin as a deviation from principle, whereas the reality is that the muhaddithin did not deviate from any principle in calling it authentic. To consider the statement of Allama Ibn as-Sabbagh in the fifth century as the decision and principle of the muhaddithin is itself incorrect.Not only this, an even stranger thing is that respected Ammar Sahib says:
Under the principles we have stated, the author agreed with our criticism of the addition made by another narrator in the hadith under discussion from Umm al-Mu'minin. Ishaq bin Rashid, in his narration from Ibn Shihab Zuhri, added against other students that Abu Bakr insulted both slave girls and tore their cheeks. Regarding this, the author stated: Ishaq bin Rashid is indeed trustworthy, but he has some misconceptions in narrating from Imam Zuhri, and this narration was also reported by Ishaq bin Rashid from Imam Zuhri.
Presenting the same passage in support, respected Ammar Sahib said: Our question is, does the presence of some misconceptions in a trustworthy narrator necessarily mean that the narrations and additions he transmits are completely unreliable? The respected Maulana (author) himself, despite acknowledging some misconceptions in the narrations of Hisham bin Urwah’s Iraqi students, has defended them. Al-Khal
Reference: (Ishraq: p.35-36 September 2006)
First, see here that Ishaq bin Rashid is trustworthy and truthful, but in the narrations of Imam Zahri, there are some doubts about him, to the extent that Imam Yahya bin Ma'in said: [ليس هو في الزهري بذاك]
Imam Muhammad bin Yahya al-Dhuhli, may Allah have mercy on him, who is known among the muhaddithin for his specialization in the narrations of Imam Zahri, says:
[هو مضطرب الحديث في حديث الزهري] Similarly, Imam Nasai, may Allah have mercy on him, said that Ishaq's narrations from Zahri are not strong, [ليس بذاك القوی] (التہذیب: ص230 ج1، مقدمہ فتح الباری:ص389، تحفة الاشراف:ص28 ج12)
Due to the issues in the speech in Ishaq's narrations from Imam Zahri, Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, did not take any narration solely on the chain of Ishaq from Zahri. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, also wrote: [غالب ما أخرج له البخاري ما شاركه فيه غيره عن الزهري وهى مواضع يسيرة]
Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, narrated as many narrations from Zahri through Ishaq as there are others with him, and those are few places.
Reference: (Hadi al-Sari: p.389)
This supports the meticulousness and caution of Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him. For this reason, the writer had stated that in the narration of Ishaq, the words [فسبهما وخرق دفيهما] are noteworthy, because apart from Ishaq bin Rashid, none of Imam Zahri’s other students have transmitted these words or anything of this nature, which mentions tearing the drum. The presence of some misconceptions in a trustworthy narrator does not, without doubt, render all of his narrations unreliable. However, when a trustworthy narrator transmits from a narrator about whom the muhaddithin have expressed criticism, and that narrator is unique in narrating from him or in adding something extra, then this uniqueness will not be acceptable.
In the context of our discussion and based on the narration of Ishaq bin Rashid from Imam Zahri (may Allah have mercy on him), it is absolutely incorrect to discuss the uniqueness of Abu Usama Hamad bin Usama in the narration under discussion from Hisham, because Abu Usama is indeed a narrator from Kufa. However, we have clearly demonstrated with evidence that the claim of doubt in all of Hisham’s narrations after his journey to Iraq is baseless. Most of the discussion is about those narrations which he narrated on his second or third journey, whereas Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him), Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), Imam Darqutni (may Allah have mercy on him) interpret such narrations as due to differences in condition. When Hisham was in a state of ease and satisfaction, he would mention the full chain of transmission, and when his condition was uneasy, he would omit the chain. This is not only Hisham’s practice but also that of other trustworthy narrators, as Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) has clarified with examples.
Therefore, based on a few such narrations, neither is it correct to object to their established narrations nor can they be called inconsistent or fabricators.
The distinction that Abu Usama had with Hisham and what Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said in this regard, the esteemed readers have already read that no one narrated better hadiths from Hisham than Abu Usama. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) praised the hadith of "Ifk" narrated from Hisham and said: [جوده وجوده] meaning that Usama narrated it very beautifully, very beautifully. Similarly, regarding the narration from Hisham about the inheritance of Hazrat Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him), he said that Abu Usama narrated it in a very good and complete manner.
Reference: (Sharh al-‘Ilal by Ibn Rajab: p680 vol 2)
After these clarifications by Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, regarding the narrations of Abu Usama from Hisham, can any sane person say that Abu Usama is Iraqi, that the narrations narrated by Hisham in Iraq are weak, and that they contain doubt? Therefore, this narration of Abu Usama is also a result of his doubt.
Furthermore, those who narrate about Hisham's traditions also mention that in Hisham's last period, those who narrated from him were Waki', Ibn Namir, and Muhadhir, and this narration is actually reported from Hisham by Abu Usama. From this perspective as well, the speech in Hisham's narration is entirely baseless. Therefore, when Abu Usama's narrations from Hisham are authentic and sound, to compare Abu Usama's uniqueness with Ishaq ibn Rashid's uniqueness from Al-Zuhri is not a service to knowledge and scholarship, because the honorable Muhaddithin have outright declared Ishaq's narrations from Imam Zuhri, may Allah have mercy on him, as weak and containing his conjecture. Hence, why should his uniqueness be acceptable compared to other trustworthy narrators from Imam Zuhri, may Allah have mercy on him? Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, himself supports this style by taking only those narrations from Ishaq from Al-Zuhri in which his following is found, and only a few of them. As Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, has also clarified. Sheikh Saleh bin Hamid Al-Rifai, may Allah preserve him, has written an independent book
Reference: Al-Thiqat Alladhina Da'afu fi Ba'd Shuukhihim
under the title in which he mentions narrators who are trustworthy but have been declared weak in narrating from some of their teachers. In it, he also mentions Ishaq ibn Rashid, and the summary of what he stated is:[إن إسحاق بن راشد ثقة وقد ثبت سماعه من الزهري ، لكن في حديثه عن الزهري بعض الوهم كما قال ابن حجر، لذلك لا يقبل من حديثه عن الزهري إلا ما وافقه عليه غيره]
Ishaq bin Rashid is trustworthy, and his narration from Zahri is established, but there is some doubt in his hadith from Zahri, as Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) has said. Therefore, only those narrations from him through Zahri will be accepted in which another narrator has corroborated them.
Reference: (الثقات:ص200)
But has anyone said about Abu Usama Hamad bin Usama that there is doubt in his narrations from Hisham? Rather, his narrations from Hisham have been called the best and most excellent. But unfortunately, respected Ammar Sahib places both on the same scale and says that if Ishaq's uniqueness is not accepted, then why is Abu Usama's acceptance valid? فوا أسفا
From our remarks, it has become as clear as daylight that the narration of Abu Usama from Hisham in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim is authentic and free from any defect. This ruling is not based on any misconception or blind following, but rather on evidence and proofs.
