Light On the Muhammadan Sunnah Or Defence of the Hadith

Musnad Ahmad

A question may be raised that for what reason we made no reference to Musnad Ahmad among books of hadith that were discussed elaborately, despite its being more extensive in narration and all-inclusive than them, to the extent that it was said to contain forty thousand traditions! with its author being a great leader having one of followed school of thought adopted by numerous communities of Muslims? My reply to this being that, I made no detailed mention of this book or other Masanid books – which number so many – only due to the fact that the ulama’ have discussed them judging them to be unfit for argumentation and debate, and not dependable. But I found it proper to shed light upon Musnad Ahmad, which being the most famous of them, so as to reveal for the Muslims its real state and lay bare its position among books of hadith, to be a criterion by which all other Musnads should be measured. With this we can be satisfied and in no need of talking about other books.

I will initiate with a foreword manifesting the status of Musnad books in general among hadith books, and level of narrations contained in them, discussing then Musnad Ahmad.

Musnad Books Other Than al-Sihah al-Sittah:

The Musnad books are those books in which every Companion would privately report a hadith, with no regard to categorization. Their compilers used to bring together in the Musnad of every Sahabi all of his traditions whether correct or defective, hence it is absolutely improper to use whatever recorded in them for argumentation.

Ibn al-Salah, in his Muqaddimah says: The Musnad books can never reach the level of the five books: Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawud, Sunan al-Nasa’i and Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi. Also they are neither fit for

argumentation as in the case of those books, nor dependence can be there upon all the traditions cited in them, like Musnad Abi Dawud al-Tayalisi, Musnad Ubayd Allah ibn Musa and Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and their likes. The authors of these books used to report in the sanad of every Companion all the traditions heard from him without any commitment to their being fit for argument, the fact leading them to be lower in rank than those five books – though being high due to highness of their authors – beside their like of categorized books.

Wali Allah al-Dihlawi says: “The Musnad books brought together the sahih, hasan (good), da’if (weak), well-known, odd, eccentric, disapproved, mistaken and right, thabit and maqlub (reversed) traditions. Besides, they could never gain that fame among the ulama’, though they be no more deemed fully disapproved, nor their veracity or weakness be fully investigated by the traditionists. And among them are some that no grammarian could use because of their oddity, no faqih could comply with the madhahib of the salaf (predecessors), no traditionist could manifest their dubiety, and no historian could refer to names of their rijal.” 616

Al-Nawawi, in his Taqrib, when discussing the hadith books and their ranks, said: Concerning Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Musnad Abi Dawud al-Tayalisi and other Musnads, they can never be counted to occupy the same position of the five books and their likes, in respect of argumentation and reliance on whatever cited in them.

Comments on Musnad Ahmad:

The statements mentioned before were comments on ranks of Musnad books in general among hadith books, that could be considered as unanimously agreed among traditionists. In regard of Musnad Ahmad in particular, I quote herewith some comments of leaders of hadith on it, initiating with utterance of Imam of Hanbalis after Ahmad: Ibn Taymiyyah. After quoting these sayings, we are not to blame if this would enrage any of

those claiming to be rijal of hadith nowadays, as truth should be followed. And I have never brought out this book but only for the purpose of pleasing the truth (haqq) alone, and if any one be enraged, his anger should be with truth not with us.

About Abu Nu’aym, Ibn Taymiyyah said: He had reported many traditions that were deemed weak or rather fabricated, according to concurrence of ulama’. And though he was a trustworthy memorizer, known of being prolific in narrating the hadith, and of extensive riwayah, but he used to — like other similar narrators – narrate whatever contained in the chapter (bab) for being acquainted with that, although he could not use all of it, except some portion, in argumentation . This while the authors of Musannafs were not reporting from those known to be falsifiers, like Malik and Shu’bah and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who were never reporting from any narrator they could never trust, nor relating any hadith from that known to be one of those who were deliberately falsifying the hadith. But it may happen that the narrators of some traditions might have committed mistakes in them, and al-Imam Ahmad and Ishaq and others may report traditions known to be weak in their view due to charging their reporters with had memory or the like, so as to be considered and inferred by others. It may happen that some evidences indicating that this hadith being preserved (against error), and may be there other signs proving its being wrong, with its original narrator being a liar in reality but not known for all to be falsifier, rather known to be relating many correct traditions, consequently his traditions would be reported. A large number of compilers may find difficulty in discerning this fact as it is, failing to find the truth, as a result of which he may narrate whatever reaching his ear as it is, leaving others to blame not him. 618 Ibn Taymiyyah also said: It is not necessary that whatever reported by Ahmad in his Musnad is to be regarded hujjah by him, but rather he may report the traditions narrated by men of knowledge, as his condition for the musnad lies in not reporting from those known of falsification in his view, though containing some weak traditions. In regard of books of fada’il (merits), he (Ahmad) used to narrate

whatever he heard from his shaykhs, whether being correct or weak, as never intended to not reporting but only those traditions proved to be true for him, increasing then some additions, with some other additions made then by Abu Bakr al-Qati’i, in which numerous fabricated traditions can be seen. 619

He further said: Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to narrate every hadith related by people even if its veracity was not established. Every knowledge-seeker is aware that not every hadith on merits reported by Ahmad, should necessarily be correct, nor every hadith he reported in his Musnad should be deemed sahih, as these being the same traditions related by people from that who is known among people of transmission (naql) but his falsity was not manifest for all, with some of them probably having a defect indicating their being weak or even invalid. 620

In a reply to that inferring a hadith reported by Ahmad which was false, he said: Even if we suppose the hadith be reported by Ahmad, this can never necessitate its being sahih and should be adopted in practice. Rather, al-Imam Ahmad is known to have reported many traditions so as to make people aquainted with them, disclosing for people their weakness, the fact that can be better apparent in his speech and answers, needing no more elucidation, especially in such a great source. In this book – Musnad Ahmad – many additions were increased by his son Abd Allah, from whom al-Qati’i reported with adding from his shaykhs several traditions that were known to be fabricated with concurrence of notable traditionists. 621

In his book Qa’idah jalilah fi al-tawassul wa al-wasilah, he writes: There was heated dispute between Abu al-Ala’ al-Hamadani and al-Shaykh Abu al-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi, regarding presence of any fabricated hadith in Musnad Ahmad. Al-Hamadani denied its existence and Abu al-Faraj proved its being there, stating that it contained traditions known to be false. And no incompatibility is there between the two opinions, as what is deemed fabricated by Abu al-Faraj being that hadith on the falsity of which a proof was established though the narrator not intending falsity but committing an error in it. While al-Hafiz Abu al-Sa’ud and his likes meant by the falsified

fabricated hadith, that one whose narrator intended falsity on purpose, 622 following the rule of “That to blame for falsity being one who intended it”. Whereas the narration of unintentional liar cannot be counted as falsity! And how much detrimental was this rule for religion.

In the same rule he said too that Ahmad ibn Hanbal and other ulama’ permitted reporting of traditions on virtuous deeds, that were not known to be established. 623

Among the traditions reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and agreed by Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi and Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, we can refer to the traditions: “When we narrate (a hadith) on halal (lawful) and haram (unlawful) we be severe, whereas when narrating on virtues (fada’il) we show tolerance.”

In Ikhtisar ulum al-hadith, 624 Ibn Kathir says: The comment of Abu Musa Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Midyani on Musnad Ahmad that it is sahih, is verily a weak saying as it (Musnad) contained feeble or even fabricated traditions, like those on excellences of Marv, Asqalan and the Red Berth belonging to Hams and others, as indicated by a group of huffaz. Besides, al-Imam Ahmad missed so many traditions in his book, and rather it was said that he has not reported from the Sahabah whose traditions are recorded in the two Sahihs, numbering about two hundred.

Al-Iraqi says: In refutation to those claiming that Ahmad ibn Hanbal took upon himself to reporting sahih traditions in his Musnad, we say: We never admit this, and regarding existence of weak hadith in his Musnad it is something verified, and rather it contains fabricated traditions which I collected in a booklet. Further his son Abd Allah made many additions containing weak and fabricated traditions with hadith of Anas: Asqalan is one of the two brides, from which Allah will resurrect on the Doomsday seventy thousand persons that will never be subject to reckoning. Also it contained several disapproved traditions of which hadith of Buraydah: “Be present at Khurasan then settle down at the City of Marv, as it is built by Dhu al-Qarnayn…etc. But the hadith of Berth being: “From it Allah will resurrect

seventy thousand men not subject to reckoning or chastisement, in a place between the Red Berth and so and so, also hadith of A’ishah on the story of Umm Zar’ which is found in the Sahih but not cited in Musnad Ahmad.

Al-Allamah Abd al-Rahman ibn Isma’il , known with the nickname Abu Shamah, in his book al-Ba’ith ala inkar al-bida’ wa al-hawadith, says: Abu al-Khattab said: Companions of al-Imam Ahmad infer the traditions reported by Ahmad in his Musnad in argumentation, while most of them being unfit for argumentation, as they were cited by him only for knowing the source of the hadith, and determining whether its narrator being reliable or defamed! And it is impermissible for any well-informed Muslim to cite but only what is correct so as not to be miserable in the world and hereafter, as there is a correct hadith reported from Sayyid al-Thaqalayn (S) that he said: “Whoever relates from me any hadith, knowing it to be false, he will verily be counted as a liar.”

Some of the examiners of Musnad Ahmad said about it: Truly the Musnad contained many traditions that were so weak to the extent that they were counted among the fabricated ones. 626

When al-Imam Ahmad’s saying: ‘I made this book an imam, so as to be a reference for people when differing in any sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, 627 was objected, my reply would be that al-Imam Ahmad started to write the Musnad on separate papers, making it then in separate parts like a draft copy. But his last hour approached before completing his work, when he embarked on reciting it to his sons and family members, passing away before revising and rectifying it, leaving it as it is. Then his son Abd Allah added to it traditions resembling what it contained, including in it alike and identical ones from his memory (what he heard). After that al-Qati’i selected from this copy whatever he could of traditions, causing confusion in Musnads and repetition. Consequently numerous traditions were left intact on papers and booklets since they were out of reach, as a result of which the Musnad was lacking many sahih traditions.

When al-Imam Ahmad said: I have compiled and selected this book

out of more than 750 thousand traditions; whenever Muslims differ regarding any hadith of the Messenger of Allah they can refer to it, if it be there (it should be adopted) and otherwise it is not a hujjah (fit for argumentation), Abu Abd Allah al-Dhahabi said: This utterance by him (Ahmad) applies to general probability, since there being strong traditions in the two Sahihs and Sunan and parts that are not found in the Musnad. And Allah predestined for al-Imam (Ahmad) to stop the narration before revising the Musnad, thirteen years before his death, as a result of which we find in the book repeated things, and interlacing of a Musnad into a Musnad and of a sanad (chain) into a sanad, which being a very rare case. 629

Ibn al-Jawzi, in his book Sayd al-Khatir, has a commentary on the Musnad, I quote herewith its very words from the introduction to volume one of the Musnad (published by Dar al-Ma’arif):

A section (fasl): A question put forth to me by some men of hadith: Does Musnad Ahmad contain any incorrect hadith? I said: Yes. But this was regarded as exaggeration by some claiming to be among the followers of the madhhab (school of thought), whom I held to be among common people, paying no attention to them. But all of a sudden, they issued some fatawa (verdicts), in which some of people of Khurasan including Abu al-Ala’ al-Hamadani aggrandized and refuted this saying censuring anyone uttering it! This made me so amazed and astonished, speaking to myself: How wonderful! Knowledge claimants turned to be among common people too! And the only reason for this was that they heard the hadith without investigating to recognize the correct and defective ones, supposing that whoever holding what I held was subject to vilification in respect of what Ahmad reported, while the truth was never so. Because Ahmad has reported the good and weak traditions altogether, with disapproving and not adopting many of these traditions he himself reported. Hasn’t he said about the hadith on “performing ablution with wine” that it is “unknown”! and whoever looking into the book al-Ilal, compiled by Abu Bakr al-Khallal, will verily come across a large number

of traditions that were cited in the Musnad, and vilified by Ahmad.

Al-Qadi Abu Ya`la Muhammad ibn al-Husayn al-Farra’, in a comment on the issue of wine, said: Ahmad reported in his Musnad whatever was widely-known of hadith without intending to bring either the sahih or the defective ones. The evidence for this can be seen in Abd Allah’s words, saying: I said to my father: What is your opinion about the hadith of Rib’i ibn Kharash which he reported from Hudhayfah? He said: You mean the one reported by Abd al-Aziz ibn Abi Dawud? I said: Yes. He said: There are traditions contradicting it. I said: But you have cited it in your Musnad!? He said: You mean the widely-known Musnad…if I intended to cite only what I think to be right, I wouldn’t report in this Musnad but only very little number of traditions, but you know my way of citing the hadith…as I never oppose the weak hadith when there be nothing refuting it in the chapter.

Al-Farra’ said: He himself has explained his method of citing the hadith in the Musnad, as whoever was taken by him as a reference for correct hadith, he would contradict and leave him.

Ibn al-Jawzi said: What grieved me in this time,