Light On the Muhammadan Sunnah Or Defence of the Hadith

Al-nasa’i

He is Abu Abd al-Rahman Ahmad ibn Shu’ayb al-Nasa’i. He was born in Nasa which belonged to Nisabur in 215 H. Al-Daraqutni said: He travelled for performing the hajj pilgrimage, and was put to the test in Damascus realizing the shahadah then, when he said: Carry me to Mecca. So he was carried to it, dying there, and was buried in a place between the Safa and Marwah. The date of his death was 303 H.

Al-Dhahabi says: In Damascus he was questioned about merits of Mu’awiyah, when he said: Never he be pleased with being neck and neck (with Ali) so as to be preferred! He (al-Dhahabi) said: Then people kept on pushing him till bringing him out of the mosque, after which he was carried to Mecca where he died, while the correct narration, it was Ramlah (not Mecca), and he said: I entered Damascus, finding those turning away from Ali large in number, when I compiled the book al-Khasa’is, imploring Allah to guide them to the right path.

The narrations of al-Nasa’i differed much from others, and his book al-Mujtana, which was counted among the five principles, and was known with Sunan al-Nasa’i al-saghir, was narrated by Ibn al-Sunni. While the narration of Ibn Hayat and Ibn al-Ahmar and Ibn Qasim, was called Sunan al-Nasa’i al-kabir. Ibn Kathir said: In Sunan al-Nasa’i, we find rijal unknown either considerably or in respect of position, among whom we find some of defamed reputation (majruh), and in it weak and defective and disapproved traditions are found. 607

There are other books, the reference to which is out of scope here, since they (Sunnis) have said: These five books: al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi and al-Nasa’i have never missed any of the Messenger’s traditions but so rarely.

In al-Taqrib (p. 3) al-Nawawi writes: “It is correct to say that only very few traditions were missed by the five books. Al-Suyuti, in his Alfiyyah, also referred to this. Ibn Khaldun, after discussing al-Muwatta’ and these five books, 608 said: These are the well-known masanid in faith (millah), and major

reference of books of hadith among the Sunnah, which even when numbering many, but most often should be referred to these (five) books.

Following is a statement uttered by Monsieur Amil Darmengihim in his book “Hayat Muhammad” (Life of Muhammad):

The first sources for sirah (biography) of Muhammad being the Qur’an and Sunnah, of which the Qur’an being the most authentic in sanad, but it being not so comprehensive to the extent needed in this regard. In regard of the hadith, despite all the efforts exerted by the traditionists, particularly al-Bukhari, in collecting all the utterances of the Messenger and having knowledge of the least of his indications, with the biography of the rijal from whom the traditions – the musalsal and mu’an’an – were reported, it contained so many doubted and fabricated ones … etc.

Commenting on Darmengihim’s statement, Emir Shakib Arsalan expressed: “He was not believing in veracity of so many of the traditions even those cited in the two Sahihs. This being one of the thought tastes for which we cannot blame him, when taking into consideration the fact that many Muslims and those having Islamic ardour and strong faith and conviction share Monsieur Darmengihim in this opinion, finding it not a religious obligation to believe in all the traditions cited in the two Sahihs or others, since changing or alteration or addition or omission, might have crept into them, as it is known that they used to narrate hadith on basis of meaning. And narrating hadith on basis of meaning, usually opens the door for many additions through which the meaning may differ or be alienated from its origin, till he said:

The evidences the help from which is obtained by this elite for obligatoriness of not considering most of the traditions as definitely right, and necessity of contemplation before accepting what people hastily approve, being the following:

First: Non-possibility of narrating any hadith but only very rarely without any addition or omission, out of what one learnt before, as when one intending to reiterate any words he heard, it would be verily infeasible for him

to cite the same and very words even after elapse of only one hour after hearing them.

Second: The belief held by them that innumerable traditions being narrated on basis of meaning, the fact leading to many changes in words.

Third: Liability to inadvertence and forgetfulness on the part of every man regarding which no one can dispute at all.

Fourth: The Prophet (S) himself referring to fabrication of ahadith during his lifetime, and the most authentic hadith known to be uttered by him being: “Falsifiers to me have been multiplying, whoever falsifies my hadith should dwell in his abode in Fire.”

Then he (Arsalan) said: Suspicion still hanging about so many traditions cited in the Sihah, not in respect of honesty in naql (reporting) but in respect of non-ability of human beings – except in very rare cases – to narrating whatever coming to their ears literally, or citing the events exactly with no any addition or deletion. There may be two persons witnessing one and the same event, but each one of them may narrate it slightly or much different from the other.

Al-Mustakhrajat

Al-Istikhraj (extraction) is a practice in which a memorizer embarks on citing al-Bukhari’s traditions one by one through asanid he approved of without observing the trustworthiness of the narrators from other than the turuq of al-Bukhari, till meeting with him in his Shaykh or that of a higher rank. But it is impermissible for the extractor to deviate from the way through which he meets with the compiler of the origin to the remote way but only for an urgent purpose, like a significant addition or alike. The extractor might abandon traditions for which he couldn’t find an authentic isnad, or rather might have reported them from some narrators, or citing them through the original source. Many of the huffaz cared much for istikhraj due to the significant advantages it had, restricting this most often to Sahih al-Bukhari

and Sahih Muslim as they being the main references in this science (in view of those adopting it). From al-Bukhari extraction was done by Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Isma’ili and Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Barqani, and those extracting from Sahih Muslim were Abu Ja’far Ahmad al-Nisaburi and Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Raja al-Nisaburi, who shared Muslim in most of his shaykhs, and many others.

Among those who extracted from both of them we can refer to Abu Nu’aym al-Isfahani with some other narrator, who extracted also from Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi. Many benefits are there for mustakhrajat, some of which being the additions to the traditions cited by them that were not found in the original ones from which extraction was done. These additions only emerged because the narrators could not observe citing the very words of the traditions they extracted from, but only the words with which the narration reached them from their shaykhs, that most often be contradictory to them. Contravention may occur in meaning also. Another benefit is the probability that the Sahih compiler may have reported from that accused of confusion, without manifesting whether he heard that hadith before confusion or after it, the case in which the mustakhrij would demonstrate this either through declaration or by narrating it from him through the tariq of that from whom he hadn’t heard but only before confusion. Also of them, his reporting in the Sahih from one known of tadlis with unauthentic chain, but the mustakhrij narrating it with declaration by hearing. Of them too the hadith containing some expression contradicting an Arabic grammar rule, the case in which he exerts much effort for justifying and drawing it out, so it would be produced according to the rules through the narration of the mustakhrij, when it would be introduced as sahih, while claiming that what inflicted the sahih ones was only misconception on the part of the narrators. 611

Ibn al-Salah says: The compiler of the books extracted from al-Bukhari and Muslim have never observed agreement of hadith words with those books exactly without any addition or omission, since they reported these traditions from other than al-Bukhari and Muslim, seeking higher isnad,

the act resulting in some inconsistency in wording. So was the case with the traditions reported by authors of independent compilations like al-Sunan al-kubra of al-Bayhaqi, and Sharh al-Sunnah of Abu Muhammad al-Baghawi and others, in which they said: ‘It is reported by al-Bukhari or Muslim,’ the case in which it would be got that none other than al-Bukhari or Muslim has reported the origin of that hadith, with probability of presence of difference in meaning between them,