Light On the Muhammadan Sunnah Or Defence of the Hadith
The Companions Criticizing Each Other:
It was not satisfactory for the Companions to be stringent in accepting the reports from their brethren, as previously mentioned, but they exceeded the limits to the extent of criticizing and reviling each other.
It was that Umar, Ali, Uthman, A’ishah and Ibn Abbas with other Companions used to scrutinize their brethren, raising doubt regarding some of the traditions they were reporting from the Messenger, giving back to them their narrations.
Mahmud ibn al-Rabi’ – who was among those realizing the Messenger’s lifetime while being too young – reports that he heard Utban ibn Malik al-Ansari, who was present at the time of Battle of Badr, declaring that the Messenger of Allah said: Allah forbade Fire from afflicting whoever saying, “No god is there but Allah” seeking with it God’s sake only. The Messenger uttered this while being in the house of Utban who related it to some people among whom being Abu Ayyub – the Companion of the Messenger of Allah – but he (Abu Ayyub) denied my utterance, saying: By God I never think the Messenger of Allah to have said what you uttered! The Murji’ah 111 (Postponers) have used this hadith and its alike as an evidence for their madhhab (school of thought). Further A’ishah refuted the hadith reported by Umar and his son that (the Prophet said): “The dead person is afflicted with torment out of his household’s lamentation over him,” and she said to them: You relate from truthful people, but hearing may err. By God, the Messenger of Allah has never said that Allah inflicts the believer with torment due to his family’s lamentation over him! And she added: The Qur’an is sufficient for you, when saying: “…and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another.”
In another narration, when hearing Ibn Umar relating this hadith she said: It is not so! But he (Prophet) said that the dead is tormented because of
his guilt and sin, the reason for which his household are weeping over him.” Again in another occasion she said that he has not lied, but he has forgotten or erred, repeating his (Ibn Umar’s) words, that: Once upon a time the Messenger of Allah stood by al-Qulayb, where those killed in the Battle of Badr from among the polytheists were buried, exclaiming: “Verily they can hear what I am saying.” Saying then: It is not so, but what he actually said is that: Only now they realized that what I was telling them was the truth, and she recited the verses. “Lo! Thou canst not make the dead to hear (27:80)” and “Thou canst not reach those who are in the graves (35:22)” when they occupied their abode in Fire. Both the traditions are recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and other books.
A’ishah has also refuted the hadith in which it was claimed that the Prophet saw his Lord on the Ascension Night, that was reported by the two shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim) from ‘Amir ibn Masruq who said to A’ishah: O mother, has Muhammad actually seen his Lord? She said: I am shocked at these words! Haven’t you heard these three traditions saying that whoever related to you has lied. 112 Whoever relating to you that Muhammad has seen his Lord has verily lied, reciting then: “…and knoweth not any soul what it shall earn tomorrow.” Then she resumed: And whoever relating to you that he (the Prophet) has concealed anything, has verily lied, reciting then: “O Messenger! Make known that which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord.”
In Sahih Muslim, he (Ibn Masruq) said: I was reclining, and sat straightened then, saying (to A’ishah): Hasn’t Allah said: “And verily he saw him yet another time”? She said: I was the first one to question the Messenger of Allah about that saying: O Messenger of Allah, have you actually seen your Lord? He said: Never, but I saw Gabriel descending. In another narration, Abu Dharr inquired the Prophet about that (seeing his Lord), when he (S) said: I saw a light (nur)…I believe I saw a light. 113
She has also disapproved the report of Ibn Umar and Abu Hurayrah that (the Prophet said): Ominousness verily lies in three things, and she said
for elucidating this: The Messenger of Allah was in fact
When coming to hear the hadith reported by Abu al-Darda’ that he (S) said: “Whoever enters upon the morning, his night prayers (watr) is invalid then,” she commented: Nay, Abu al-Darda’ did lie … the Prophet was performing watr prayers even after entering upon the morning. And when knowing that Ibn Umar said: The Messenger of Allah performed the short pilgrimage (umrah) in the Month of Rajab, she judged that he committed an inadvertence (sahw). In regard of Anas ibn Malik and Abu Sa’id al-Khudri she said: Anas and Abu Sa’id were not aware of (or able to comprehend) the hadith of the Messenger of Allah since they were two young lads (boys)! She used to reject and refute any hadith incongruous with the Qur’an, with conceiving the narration of any truthful Companion to be mistakenly heard or based on misconception.
Narration of Hadith after its Writing was Forbidden by Prophet:
Those having no expertise in knowledge and no awareness of expertise, surmise that the Messenger’s traditions which they read in books or hear from narrators, have all reached us correct in syntax and well-arranged in wording, and that their original words reached to the narrators intact and preserved exactly as were uttered by the Prophet, without any corruption (tahrif) or alteration.
They further think that the Companions and those who succeeded them who kept in memory the Prophet’s traditions till the time of tadwin (writing down of hadith), have conveyed them with their original text and wording exactly as they heard them, and duly related them in the form they received them, keeping them safe against any change and alteration.
And the idea seizing people’s minds was that these narrators constituting altogether a distinguished stratum among people in calligraphy, perfect exactitude, and powerful memory. And that their minds were created in a special shape with no parallel among all people, in a way that whatever they were hearing would be engraved on their (minds) tablets escaping not even one word and sparing not even one letter.
Undoubtedly, this kind of conception had its extreme impact upon the thinking of chiefs of religion, except those whom God kept immune. It made them hold these traditions in the same position of the Qur’anic verses, the fact entailing obligation to abide by them and surrender to their rules, in a way that whoever contradicting them would be considered as sinner, guilty and debauchee, and that denying or suspecting them would be counted an apostate that should repent.
For this reason, I opined to elaborate discussion on this topic, so as to expose to people the true aspect in it, making them recognize that the traditions reported to them from the Messenger of Allah (S) were in fact narrated according to their denotations and meanings, when (the Companions) failing to convey them with their real syntax and wording, either due to forgetting their origin or their being kept in memories for a very long time since they narrated them for the first time. Furthermore, it was that every narrator would report only that portion of the hadith his mind could keep according to the meaning, after his memory failing to recollect its original words. This was due to the fact that they (companions), have not cared, in the outset, for writing down the hadith, letting it be narrated through denotation, the state attaining agreement of all gnostics and scholars.
forbidding it and some others permitting. The significance of demonstrating this subject prompts us to refer here to some of the evidences of these and those (people), finding no one making a comprehensive investigation on this issue except al-Allamah al-Shaykh Tahir al-Jaza’iri, in his valuable book Tawjih al-nazar. Following are excerptions of his statements. 119
The Murji'ah was one of great Islamic parties, which held that: Guilt can never do harm beside faith, nor obedience can be of benefit when accompanying disbelief.
In Sahih Muslim, the narration is thus: "… he has in fact done a great slander against God. The ahadith on sighting God amounted to thirty in number as stated by Ibn al-Qayyim in Hadi al-arwah, among them more than twenty ones were marfu', not to refer to the mawquf ones and the athar.
In Fath al-Bari, Ibn Hajar says: Al-Qurtubi, in al-Mufhim, preponderated the idea of waqf in this issue attributing this to a group of researchers. This notion was supported by the fact that there was no clear-cut proof in this regard, and what he inferred for both the sects were only contradictory external aspects liable to interpretation. That is, the issue was not of the practical matters, when conjectual evidences be sufficient to prove it, but it being one of doctrines (mu'taqadat) the proving of which only definite proof is sufficient.
Refer to my book Shaykh al-mudirah, in which all these akhbar and others are stated elaborately.
Al-Imam al-Zarkashi has compiled a valuable book in which he cited the restrictions (istidrakat) made by 'A'ishah against the Sahabah, calling it al-Ijabah li-irad ma istadrakathu A'ishah 'ala al-Sahabah. He died in 794 H.
Al-Isti'ab, vol. II, p. 154.
See Shaykh al-mudirah, the 3rd edition.
Ibn al-Salah, in his Muqaddimah, says: The narrators were most often reporting the same meaning of one subject through different words, and the only reason for this was their depending on the meaning not the words (p. 90).
In p. 298 and the following pages in brief.