Light On the Muhammadan Sunnah Or Defence of the Hadith
Narrating Hadith By Meaning and Disagreement Among Scholars:
The ulama’ disagreed regarding narration of hadith by meaning, with some holding it to be absolutely impermissible, among whom being Ibn Sirin, Tha’lab and Abu Bakr al-Razi, beside Ibn Umar
This issue was tackled by usul scholars, and due to its extreme importance I would like to cite here excerpts of their statements for readers’ satisfaction.
In al-Luma’, Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi is reported to have said: Ikhtiyar in narration is to narrate the report by its original wording, in accordance with the Prophet’s hadith: “May Allah bless whoever hears my utterance and comprehends it, delivering it as he heard it. Holder of fiqh may convey it to that who being more knowledgeable than him.
inflect with it. But if it be a conspicuous report, there would be two views regarding it:
Some of our scholars hold that: It is impermissible, as worship may be fulfilled through uttering some words like takbirah of prayers. Some others believe in its permissibility, which is more preponderant as it indicates its denotation, according to a hadith reported from the Prophet (S): No harm will befall you if you hit the mark.
This hadith is reported by Ibn Mindah in Ma’rifat al-Sahabah, and al-Tabarani in al-Mu’jam al-Kabir, on the authority of Abd Allah ibn Sulayman ibn Akimah al-Laythi as saying: I said: O Messenger of Allah, I hear hadith from you but be unable to convey it as I hear it as one letter may be added or one omitted from it (what to do!) He (S) said: “There is no harm in it if you do not legalize any unlawful act or prohibit that which is lawful, and when you hit the mark.”
Those forbidding riwayah by meaning argued by emphasizing on the text and rational aspect. In respect of the text, it can be referred to his (S) hadith: “May God bless whoever hears my utterance and comprehends it, delivering it as he heard it. The propagator might be more conscious than the hearer. 124 In exposing it they said: Delivering it as he heard it is to deliver the same words heard. And the faqih’s conveying the fiqh to that who is more knowledgeable than him, means – God is aware – that the more sagacious one may comprehend, thanks to his fiqh, some imports from the words to which the narrator couldn’t take notice of, since he (rawi) might be lower than him in degree of fiqh.
In regard of the rational, it has two views: First: When putting (hadith) to test we found that the latter (hearer) might have inferred some imports from a verse or a report to which some of the earlier ages ulama’ and researchers could not reach. Had we permitted narration by meaning a great difference might have appeared in the hadith, though the narrator be of the opinion that no divergence is there.
Second: Had the narrator been permitted to exchange any of the
Messenger’s words with one of his own, it would have been permissible for that reporting from him to change that very word with one of his own. Rather this is more preponderant, as changing the narrator’s words is nearer to be permitted than substituting any word uttered by the legislator (Prophet), though this being in the third and fourth classes (of narrators), as the result of all this shall be verily the devaluation of the original words. It is quite certain that man, can never secure himself against change and disagreement however sincerely he strived to be trustworthy and honest in making his narration identical to the origin. Consequently, when changes and divergences continue from one to another, the last divergence would be so exorbitant that no connection or relation would be left between the last narration and original hadith.
In Sharh Tanqih al-fusul fi al-usul, al-Qarrafi says: On the contrary of the view of Ibn Sirin and some other traditionsts, Abu al-Husayn, Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi’i hold that it is permissible to report hadith by meaning provided that no addition or omission be there in translation, with its being neither more ambiguous nor more declarative, as the purpose only be to make the meanings got by the hearer, regardless of missing other than them. Whenever any addition or omission be made to the narrator’s statement, that would mean something be added or diminished from the Islamic Law, which is unanimously haram (unlawful). And whenever the expression used in the hadith be manifest but the narrator exchanges it with an obscure one, he would expose it to doubt, entailing thus preference of another one over it due to its obscurity. This being in accordance with the basis stating that should be contradiction among the traditions regarding one rule (hukm), the more manifest one would have preference over the obscure one. If the origin of the hadith be plain, but be substituted by an obscure one by the narrator, he would invalidate a good merit in it making it insustainable in case of clash of views. Also when the hadith having an obscure expression and he substitutes it with a more manifest one, he would thus obligate for it the position of preference over other traditions, while God’s hukm
(judgement) being to prefer other than it in case of clash of views. As a consequence of this change, God’s judgement has been changed, which is impermissible. This being the basis of these provisions, that when they be fulfilled the controversy would be on permissibility, otherwise it is unanimously impermissible. One of the pleas introduced by those forbidding narration by meaning, being the hadith reported by al-Bara’ ibn `Azib. 125
The proof (hujjah) given by those permitting this practice, being that the Companions used to give ears to the traditions without committing them to writing or reiterating them, embarking after elapse of long years on narrating them. In such case, man would decisively determine that it is not possible to convey the very words uttered by the Prophet, but only the meaning, since many traditions were reported with miscellaneous expressions with oneness of denotation and episode. This being the evidence given for permitting the reporting by meaning, and as the term “Sunnh” cannot be taken as subject of worship like the term Qur’an, so when the meaning attains exactitude,
In his book Qawa’id al-tahdith, 127 al-Qasimi says:
To convey and relate hadith by meaning not by the very words (original text), was permitted by some people among them being: Ali, Ibn Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, Abu al-Darda’, Wathilah ibn al-Asqa and Abu Hurayrah, with a large number of the Tabi’un, among whom we can refer to: Imam Hasan al-Basri, al-Shi’bi, ‘Amr ibn Dinar, Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, Mujahid and ‘Ikrimah.
There was much difference in the way and words used by the Sahabah in narrating the hadith from the Messenger of Allah (may God’s peace and benediction be upon him and his Progeny). Some of them used to narrate it completely, with some others narrating by meaning, and some citing it abridged, beside some others making difference between every two words with viewing it to be broad, if not being disagreeable with the original meaning. All of them intend not to lie or falsify, but everyone seeking the truth and to give the denotation of what he has heard, the fact leading to the
hadith containing them. They used to say: “Falsity is to be counted against that who exercised it internationally”. Umran ibn Muslim is reported to have said: Some man said to al-Hasan: O Abu Sa’id, when you relate any hadith, you deliver it with better context of sentences, more eloquent expressions, more fluent language than any other one relating it to us! He said: No harm in that if I hit the mark and give the meaning intended. Al-Nadr ibn Shumayl said: “Hushaym was known of committing grammatical mistakes, so I made his hadith look fine for you – i.e. with the grammatical marks. Al-Nadr ibn Shumayl was a grammarian, and Sufyan used to say: “When finding anyone intensifying in the hadith words in a meeting, it should be realized that he intends to show off himself so as to be distinguished among people. And a man kept on inquiring Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan about the way of pronouncing a letter in the hadith, when Yahya said to him: Nothing is there in the world more dignified than the Book of Allah, the Exalted, the reciting of which was permitted to be on seven readings (ahruf), so never intensify.”
Al-Bayhaqi reported on the authority of Makhul as saying: I and Abu al-Azhar entered upon Wathilah ibn al-Asqa’ and said to him: Relate to us a hadith you heard yourself from the Messenger of Allah, on condition that it be devoid of falsity, addition and inadvertence! He said: Did any of you read the Qur’an? We said: Yes, but we are not memorizing or preserving it so accurately (word by word), and add to it or omit the letters “waw” and “alif”. He said: This Qur’an amongst you, though being written, but you fail to keep it safe from alteration, with alleging that you add to and omit from it…so how would be the case with traditions we heard from the Messenger of Allah (upon whom be God’s peace and benediction), only once in our life? You can suffice with the hadith we relate to you by meaning.
Ibn Abi Layla used to narrate the hadith with different expressions every time, without any isnad (chain of transmission), but only out of what he memorized of traditions. All this was due to the fact that most of the precedent learned men were never writing any hadith, and if any had written it was only written for them after hearing it. Many of them used to narrate
hadith by meaning, with expressing it through words of his own, that would fall short of giving the full meaning. Most often the least change (in the words) may alter the whole meaning and cause ambiguity in the hadith, and it is known that al-Jumhur (Sunnites) have permitted narration by meaning. 129
In Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Makhul reported from Wathilah ibn al-Asqa’ as saying: When we relate any hadith to you by meaning, it should be sufficient for you. Al-Dhahabi, in Siyar A’lam al-nubala’, is reported to have said: When I relate to you any hadith according to its meaning, it is sufficient for you. 130 Wukay’ 131 reports also on the authority of al-Rabi’ ibn Sabih, from al-Hasan, that he said: When you hit the mark and reached the meaning, you must be satisfied with that. And he said: Had the meaning not been so broad, people would have perished, and the learned men used to compete each other by extent of memorization, exactitude and verification during hearing (the hadith), though even eminent leaders of schools could never be immune against error and mistake. Sufyan al-Thawri 132 is reported to have said: Even when I myself tell you that I am narrating to you the very ahadith as I heard (from the Prophet), never believe me, as it be no more than the meaning. When it was said to him: O Abu Abd Allah, relate to us (hadith) exactly as you heard. He would say: By Allah, this by no means is possible, it is only the meaning, no more no less. He also said: Had we intended to relate to you the hadith exactly as we heard it, we would have never been able to relate even one hadith!
The trustworthy ulama hold that it is more proper to cite the hadith with its (original) words, without making any change in them. But how far is this when the course of events proved to be to the contrary!
Al-Qadi ‘Iyad says: “The door of narration by meaning should be closed so as to prevent those unskillful (in this respect) but believing in his skill, from imposing their control over hadith, as in the case of many narrators, in the past and in the contemporary time…and Allah helps all to succeed.
Researchers hold that riwayah by meaning should never include acts
of worship performed by pronouncing certain words, like takbirat al-ihram (saying Allah is the Greater in the outset of prayers), and tashahhudat (witnesses). But there being various words cited for tashahhudat, the most widely-known of which are the following.
Among the Sahabah there were some permitting narration of hadith on basis of meaning, like: Ibn Abbas and Anas. While among the Tabi'un there were some who showed stiffness in regard of narration of hadith with its very words, like Muhammad ibn Sirin, al-Qasim ibn Muhammad and Raja' ibn Hayat. But some others showed leniency in this regard, such as al-Hasan, al-Shi'bi and al-Nakha'i.
Knowing the minuteness of words and recognizing the degree of difference among them, cannot be attained but only through being aware and sure of the original words so as to be able to change them with others. But the real reason behind narration of hadith on basis of meaning, is forgetting some of the original words, the fact leading to changing them. Since if the original words being preserved in their places, changing them will be unjustifiable, as priority should be given to narrating them, not other words.
What is strange here being that this hadith was reported in many differing ways in wording and meaning, the citing of which I avoided for sake of brevity, and the reader can see them in their due places. After citing the Messenger's saying: "May God bless that who heard my utterance and reported it as he heard it," Ibn al-Jawzi said: Reporting the hadith in the way it was heard, can never be done but through writing it, as committing to memory is mistrustful. Whenever Ahmad ibn Hanbal was relating any hadith, it was said to him: Dictate it to us. He would say: Never I do not dictate from other than the Book. Ali ibn al-Midyani says: I was ordered by Ahmad ibn Hanbal not to relate anything but from the Book (Talbis Iblis, p. 221).
Al-Iraqi, Fath al-maghib bi sharh Alfiyyat al-hadith, vol. III, p. 50, and this hadith undoubtedly contradicts the hadith: "May God have mercy upon that who heard my saying …", but every group should support its opinion by a certain hadith.
This is an excerpt from the Prophet's testament during Hijjat al-Wada': "The attendant should inform the absent one, and the shahid may inform that who is more conscious than him." In another narration: "There may be an informed person who being more conscious than a hearer". These ahadith were reported by al-Bukhari and others. On the meaning of this hadith, I can refer to what al-Tirmidhi and al-Diya' narrated of Zayd ibn Thabit's hadith, with a chain of transmitters (marfu'): "May God bless that who on hearing any hadith from us, would commit it to memory till informing it to another man. There may be a bearer of fiqh to that who is more knowledgeable than him, and there may be a bearer of fiqh, but not being a faqih. Also with the same meaning the hadith: "May God bless a man who heard something from us and reported it as he heard it … and there may be an informd man, who be more conscious than a hearer". This hadith was reported by Ahmad and al-Tirmidhi and Ibn Hibban.
The hadith of al-Bara' ibn 'Azib was recorded by al-Bukhari in his Sahih, beside Muslim, al-Nasa'i and al-Tirmidhi.
If the meaning can be exact, but it is far-reaching!
Qawa'id al-tahdith, p. 207. I suffice with this number of evidences. Anyone desiring to have more evidences can refer to al-Jaza'iri's book.
It was a common practice among the Arabs to substitute some word with another. It was reported that Dhu al-Rimmah said to Qays ibn Umar: Write down my poetry, as I prefer committing to writing over memorization … as an Arab man may forget a word which he spent a full night on seeking it. then he replaces it with another word having its meaning, transmitting it to people (Naqd al-shi'r al-Jahili, pp. 180, 181, of al-Shaykh al-Khidr Husayn).
Tawjih al-nazar, p. 76.
In vol. III, p. 259.
Wukay' ibn al-Jarrah, is an eminent leader and muhaddith of Iraq, in regard of whom Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: I have never seen better comprehender of knowledge, nor better memorizer than Wukay'. He was a thiqah, precise and godly. He died in 197 H.
Sufyan al-Thawri was the master of huffaz. He was faqih of Kufah. In his regard al-Qattan said: I have never met anyone better memorizing (of hadith) than Wukay', and he was superior to Malik in everything. He died in Basrah, in 161 H.