The Muslim ummah, in its entire history, has faced
many kinds of assaults by enemies of Islam. However, the ḥadīth fabrication
presented the most severe and unique challenge. The enemies of Islam, in the
early phase of Islamic history, decided to damage the authenticity of the
unparalleled and unexampled treasure of the prophetic knowledge, if not destroy
it altogether. Their efforts, however, were thwarted by the efforts of imāms
of the science of ḥadīth criticism. May Almighty bless the souls of
those imāms who defended the treasure of prophetic knowledge! They
exerted their full efforts in sifting the true knowledge from fabrications.
They pointed out the loopholes through which the weak aḥādīth were
mixed with the sound ones. The intensity of fabrications can be imagined by
considering the fact that only a few thousand narratives could pass the test of
a set criterion for the sound aḥādīth from hundreds of thousands of
traditions. This renders it important for us to discuss in detail the motives
of ḥadīth fabrication and try to ascertain the ways weak and fabricated
traditions were included in the sound narratives. We must also understand the
nature of this evil. For if a researcher in this field is not fully conscious
and well aware of the nature of the evil he can hardly be expected to show the
required competence.
9.1 Why were Aḥādīth fabricated?
A
study of the pioneer works on the principles of ḥadīth criticism
reveals that there were pious as well as impious motives for fabricating aḥādīth.
It was not that the fabrications for pious purposes were less harmful. Indeed
both have done equal damages to the religion. The fabrications under pious
motives have rather proved more detrimental for Islam than the ones concocted
under evil designs.
9.2 Pious Fabrications
A
thorough enquiry into the issue of ḥadīth fabrication reveals that
there are two major pious motives behind fabrication of aḥādīth. First,
people fabricated aḥādīth concerning virtues and excellences of the
Qur’ānic sūrahs in order to attract people to the Book. Second, with the
aim of drawing people to do good and avoid evil, such aḥādīth were
concocted and circulated which exaggerated rewards of good deeds and punishment
for evil ones. All other types of pious fabrications have ramifications of these
two motives.
9.2.1 The First Form
People
started to fabricate aḥādīth with an intention to serve the religion of
God. Most of the aḥādīth about excellence of reciting any of the
Qur’ānic sūrahs are examples. The
aḥādīth forged to attract people towards good deeds (targhīb) and
warn them about the Last Judgment and the consequences of misdeeds (tarhīb)
are also examples of this type of fabrications. Such aḥādīth tell us
that merely reciting a single sūrah of the Qur’ān suffices one as a
guarantor of success in the Afterlife. If a believer recites a sūrah of
the Qur’ān, for example, he does not need do anything else to deserve the life
of eternal bliss. Thus, these narratives promise extraordinary rewards for a
person reciting a single sūrah.
One
wonders how one merits such lofty rewards by merely uttering words of a sūrah
without even understanding it. This clearly contradicts the teachings of Islam.
The Prophet (sws) is reported to have stated that a believer will be rewarded
for what he comprehends in the recitations he makes in the Prayer. The Qur’ān
has expressly commanded that the believers should ponder over the Book of God.
It has commanded the believers to act upon its teachings. There is no concept
of heaping reward or seeking blessings merely through chanting the words of
God.
That
the narratives regarding the excellence of reciting the sūrahs of the
Qur’ān are very famous and widely accepted can be gleaned from that
Zamakhsharī, a celebrated exegete of the Qur’ān, tries to mention such a
narrative at the end of almost every sūrah in his commentary on the Qur’ān. This is in spite of his claims
to be mu‘tazilī rationalist. One wonders what becomes of his rationality
at this point.
Some experts
in the science of ḥadīth criticism investigated these aḥādīth
and discovered a certain fabricator. When asked why he incurred such a heinous
sin, he explained that he noticed people readily learning and following the
juristic work of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah. This alarmed him and he decided to concoct aḥādīth
eulogizing recitation of certain verses so that people might be attracted by the
Qur’ān. This motive is obviously pious. Such aḥādīth became popular and
many great scholars contributed to their spread. The experts in the science,
however, always declared them fabrications. As mentioned above, one of the
fabricators confessed his crime. These narratives, however, could not meet the
objective of the fabricators. People could not be attracted to the Qur’ān.
Contrarily, these aḥādīth created the erroneous belief that the basic
purpose the Qur’ān has been revealed to serve is not to understand and obtain
guidance from it but to earn reward by merely reciting it.
9.2.2 The Second Form
Another
group of fabricators comprises reformers and pious individuals. Directed by
their mystic disposition, they forged a lot of traditions containing warnings
of punishment for the committers of certain wrongs (tarhīb) and
promising rewards of good deeds (targhīb). The purpose was to create
fear of the Last Judgment in the hearts of people, to make them to perform
religious duties and to encourage them to avoid sinful acts. When these
fabricators were attacked by the muḥaddithūn, they pleaded that they fabricated
aḥādīth with the intent to call people to virtuousness and to stop them
from sinfulness. They should, therefore, not be subjected to the strict
criteria of ḥadīth acceptance concluded by the muḥaddithūn.
The muḥaddithūn,
instead of countering and rejecting these erroneous views, showed a concessive
attitude to these shallow arguments. They practically yielded to the view of
the fabricators and subsequently confined their scrutiny to the narratives
containing legal directives (al-aḥkām). Thus, they let the band to
fabricate and spread, as the prophetic word, whatever they liked. The view of
the fabricators finally dominated. Their fabrications are diffused through
esoteric literature produced by the Muslim Sufis. I have discussed this issue in
the chapter “Excellence of the Isnād and its Inherent Limitations”.
The
Sufis successfully put grave misconception in the minds of the muḥaddithūn.
History proved that the stance of the latter regarding such narratives was mere
naivety. If one reads through the works of the Sufis, one shall learn that they
base their innovatory beliefs and notions either on esoteric interpretation of
the Qur’ānic verses or baseless aḥādīth. This practice is not confined
to the general class of the Sufis; even the most learned among them take this
very path.
No one
doubts Imām Ghazālī’s scholarship and eruditeness. His work Iḥyā al-‘Ulūm
is one of the best works written on the subjects of taṣawwuf and tadhkiyyah
(purification of the self). However, he is the least careful person among the
scholars of the ummah in quoting baseless aḥādīth.
The fabricators
and the concessive muḥaddithūn claimed that the weak narratives that
they accepted belong to the category of targhīb wa tarhīb.
They attract people to do good and encourage them to avoid evil. However, the
truth of the matter is that these narratives affect all spheres of human life.
They even cover the fundamental religious beliefs including the belief in
unicity of God (tawḥīd) and the Last Accountability (ākhirah).
It was not, in fact, possible to contain this onslaught. For Islam is a religion,
all parts of which are inseparably interlinked. Religious directives and beliefs
as well as their philosophical bases and wisdom are inseparably interconnected.
Parts depend on the whole. If one part is infected, the whole cannot be saved
from the ailment.
We can
say that the sayings the Sufis pass as aḥādīth affect tawḥīd,
among other fundamental beliefs, moral theories and Islamic worldview. It
strikes even attributes of God Almighty. Thus all the fundamentals of Islam are
affected.
The muḥaddithūn
committed a serious wrong by accepting the weak narratives concerning the targhīb
wa tarhīb. This opened the doors to disputations over the
religion beyond reform. The door to entry for the weak aḥādīth let the
ideas of Confucius, Buddha and Zoroaster enter the religion. Alien philosophical
and esoteric notions and theories assume the form of aḥādīth and find
their way into the religion of God.
Once
this door for the weak and fabricated reports was opened, it became impossible
for the Muslims to parry the onslaught. Nobody knew what to do. All believers
cannot be expected to develop in the science, act like the most careful critics
and sift the weak from the sound aḥādīth. Yet, however, it is the duty
of the scholars to appreciate the evil results of the misjudgements of the muḥaddithūn.
I
believe that the muḥaddithūn did it with true intentions. I do not
think they committed deliberate wrong. However, it is also true that the laxity
they showed corrupted the face of Islam. It has made falsehood dominate all
aspects of religious life. Truth was shrouded and concealed under layers of
falsehood.
Although
the muḥaddithūn have stressed care in accepting the weak aḥādīth
from the pious reformers, this emphasis is meaningless because the muḥaddithūn
themselves did not make proper efforts to analyze the narratives containing targhīb
wa tarhīb. Besides, not every narrator could analyze the isnād and
the matn. In the present day, such a work is an insurmountable task. The
duty to ferret out the truth is, now, a crown of thorn rarely worn.
9.3 Pious Reformers
Now I
will explain, with the help of some examples, the nature of the act
accomplished by the pious narrators referred to earlier. To this issue the
author of al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah has devoted a complete chapter
entitled “Chapter regarding avoiding narrating aḥādīth on the authority of
individuals who are not persons of sound memory and reasoning (dirāyah) even if
they are known for piety and worship”. In this chapter, Baghdādī states
that there are people who are famous for their God-consciousness (taqwā)
and piety. However, they are not reliable transmitters. They cannot
remember aḥādīth correctly and are not trustworthy narrators. It is not
allowable to accept aḥādīth narrated by any of them. In this
connection, the author recounts many incidents. I intend to present some of the
incidents reported by him. This shall help the reader understand how the evil
of ḥadīth fabrication spread in the guise of God-consciousness. Abū
Sulayman, narrated from Rabī‘ah b. Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān:
Among our brothers, there are
some [who are so pious and God-fearing] that we believe their prayers [to God]
will not be left unheard. [However, they are least trusted.] If any of them
bears witness to an ordinary fact we do not rely on their testimony.[1]
Rabī‘ah
means to say that the apparent piety of these characters made people believe
that their prayers will definitely be heard by God. They seemed to be very
close to God. However, their testimony was not trusted even in insignificant
matters of daily life let alone the ḥadīth transmission.
Yaḥyā
b. Sa‘īd is reported to have said:
In the ḥadīth analysis,
I have not seen anything more [deceiving and, therefore,] trying than the pious
narrators.[2]
These
people are believed to be very pious and God-conscious. However, they are the
real ḥadīth fabricators. Their apparent position puts a researcher in
great trial.
Yaḥyā
b. Sa‘īd Qaṭṭān says:
There are people who I can fully
trust regarding a hundred thousand dirham but I cannot trust them regarding
even a single ḥadīth.[3]
There
could, thus, be a person who is trusted for precious assets. He is, however,
not trusted as a narrator of aḥādīth.
Ibn
Abī al-Zanād narrates from his father:
I met hundred such men in
Madīnah who are reliable in every aspect. However, they are not trusted as ḥadīth
narrators. Concerning them it is declared: “They are not reliable.”[4]
Imām
Mālik says:
I have met seventy such persons
near these pillars [in the Mosque of the Prophet (sws)] who ascribed aḥādīth
to the Prophet (sws). I have not accepted any ḥadīth from them. This is
in spite of that some among them could be trusted as in charge of the bayt
al-māl (treasury). Yet, however, they were not reliable narrators.[5]
I have
selected only a few from hundreds of such anecdotes. My purpose is to show that
many people have been fabricating aḥādīth, ascribing them to the
Prophet (sws) and disseminating them considering it a pious deed. Imām Muslim
has stated in his introduction to al-Ṣaḥīḥ that there were pious
people in Madīnah whose tongues glibly narrated fabrications.
The
above discussion shows that there are people who are apparently so pious and
God-fearing that one does not dare to mistrust their statements. One feels it
wrong to doubt their testimony for fear of God. Yet, however, the experts in
the science who were very knowledgeable indeed proved that they were
unreliable. One must not blindly take anything that people ascribe to the
Prophet (sws). The above mentioned statements ascribed to the experts of the
science teach us a lesson of a very great import. One regrets to state that
people did not hearken to these warnings. What was feared by these great
experts, in fact, came true later on. The muḥaddithūn, with the only
exception of Mālikīs, bought the view that as far as the issue of the aḥādīth
of targhīb wa tarhīb is concerned, they may not show best care and may
abandon carrying out rigorous investigation. They confined their scrutiny and required
care to the narratives containing legal rulings (ḥalāl wa ḥarām). The muḥaddithūn
surrendered before the upholders of this view perhaps because they could not
defeat this evil. They decided, as a principle, to abandon scrutinizing such
narratives. This, as has been mentioned above, relieved them from all types of
investigation and analysis on such narratives. Fabrications and weak narratives
were left to reign supreme in the Muslim beliefs and practices and thus all heresies
and innovations fed on them.
9.4 Ḥadīth Fabrication for Evil Purposes
The
above discusses the pious motives for ḥadīth fabrication. People have
been engaged in fabricating aḥādīth for evil motives as well. Two evil
motives for ḥadīth fabrications are prominent; first, seeking fame and
prominence, and second, introducing innovations in the religion of God.
9.4.1 Fabrication for Fame
This
is known that in the early period of Islamic history a narrator of aḥādīth
commanded great respect. No other accomplishment was considered more
respectable. The fame that could be earned by merely narrating a single ḥadīth
was usually unparalleled. Ḥadīth narration was, therefore, the most
cherished engagement and a very popular vocation. People were greatly attracted
to this activity. Those known to have related a ḥadīth by a highly
valued and rare isnād attracted even more love and respect from people.
People would throng towards them and would try hard to meet them. Seekers of aḥādīth
would travel from far off places to visit such people bearing great
difficulties. The roads to their hometowns grew busier. These people were
respected not only by the students of prophetic aḥādīth but also by those
of the rich and the rulers who had regard for knowledge and wisdom. They too would
express reverence for these persons believed to be possessed of great prophetic
knowledge. They too would travel to the hometowns of these teachers of aḥādīth
despite physical hardships and financial costs. Something that popular
and, hence, a source of respect and reverence attracts all kinds of people,
pious and evil. Evil people are attracted towards it with a purpose to earn
fame and other monitory benefits. This makes it difficult for masses to
differentiate between those who seek such a valued thing with purity of
intention and those who seek it for mundane purposes.
The
author of al-Kifāyah has an interesting story to tell us. Someone
invented twelve aḥādīth. He was a hero. “From where did you obtain
those narratives?” it was asked. The man answered: “From someone endowed with
this knowledge by the Almighty Allah.” He could not name the source. Of course,
there was none. It is obvious that in his fervour to earn false fame, he went
as far as to inventing aḥādīth. A person, at this stage, tries to have
a narrative related. When he fails to obtain a sound narrative, he opts for a
weak. If he fails to obtain even a weak narrative, he forges one. He has to
possess himself of a ḥadīth by hook or by crook.
9.4.2 Fabrication for Innovations
It was
the innovators who benefited from inventing aḥādīth the most of all.
Heretic sects which emerged in the Muslim ummah including Khawārij,
Shī‘ī, and Murjites[6]
are examples. Some of them had political motives too. This made them fabricate aḥādīth
expressive of the excellence of their beloved leaders and imāms, and
condemnation of their opponents. They heaped up propaganda material for or
against certain individuals. Besides, they had developed certain beliefs
divorced from the teachings of Islam. When they intended to mix their heretic
beliefs in the Islamic faith they had, to their service, the easiest method of ḥadīth
fabrication. They disseminated the fabrication in order to make the ummah
accept their heresies as the part of the religion. This was because they had failed
to base their innovations on the Qur’ān. They, therefore, disguised in the form
of a ḥadīth anything they intended to introduce as part of the
religion. In this manner, their heresies became popular for it was easy for the
generality to accept anything however removed from religion presented in the
form of a prophetic ḥadīth.
These
people successfully pretended that their heresies were based in the Qur’ān.
This too was possible only because some of the exegetes mentioned in their
commentaries baseless aḥādīth without bothering to investigate their
authenticity. The words and expressions of the Qur’ān are twisted to mean
something new and baseless. The innovators could not have used the Qur’ān, had
the careless exegetes not opened this door for them. For those who interpret
the Qur’ān in accord with their heretic beliefs and innovations are thwarted by
the Qur’ān itself. Thus, in order to make the Qur’ānic expressions say that
which corroborates their beliefs they resort to esoteric interpretation of the
text.
Thus, when heretics found it impossible to incorporate
their innovations in the religion basing it on the Qur’ān they relied on
fabricating aḥādīth to be welcomed by great a success. Whatever lies
they invented and ascribed to the Prophet (sws) were received by the
opportunists and disseminated in the public speedily.
We
should not underestimate the fabrications and lies spread in this way. A huge
number of fabrications have been incorporated in the Muslim literature. It
would not be an exaggeration to say that the number of fabricated aḥādīth
reaches hundreds of thousands. This can be gleaned from the following reports:
Ḥammād b. Salamah was heard
saying: “The heretics have fabricated and disseminated twelve thousand aḥādīth.[7]
Ḥammād b. Zayd narrated from
Ja‘far b. Sulaymān that he heard Mahdī say that one of the heretics confessed
that he had fabricated four hundred aḥādīth which gained currency.[8]
If a
single fabricator can invent four hundred aḥādīth and successfully
disseminate them in public, how dangerous would be the collective result of
such endeavours by all the adherents of the strayed and heretic sects. Keeping
this situation in perspective, we do not find it strange that Imām Bukhārī and
Imām Muslim chose a few thousand narratives out of millions of aḥādīth
in circulation.
9.5 The Muḥaddithūn on the Innovators
The muḥaddithūn
adopted a concessive attitude in response to the efforts of the pious people to
disseminate weak and fabricated narratives containing targhīb wa tarhīb.
Similarly, they adopted a weak stance regarding the forgeries of the heretics.
Instead of curbing the evil, their attitude encouraged it.
Imām
Mālik, nevertheless, adopted a sound stance in this regard. According to him,
it is prohibited to accept a ḥadīth narrated by stray people who lead
others into error. He adopted such an uncompromising attitude that he did not
even consider it allowable to narrate a ḥadīth by meaning (bi
al-ma‘nā) and accepted verbatim reports only. The following statement
ascribed to him truly depicts his unbending attitude in this regard. He said:
“I have met seventy such persons near these pillars [in the Mosque of the Prophet
(sws)] who ascribed aḥādīth to the Prophet (sws). I have not accepted
any ḥadīth narrated by them. This is in spite of that some among them could
be trusted as in charge of the bayt al-māl (treasury). Yet, however,
they were not reliable narrators.”[9]
This was the principle he expressly held and faithfully followed. One may find
narratives in his book that do not pass this test. In such cases, one should
give him some allowance. He was working in an environment where everyone
accommodated falsehood. In such situations, even a very strong person can stumble
a little.
Contrarily,
Imām Shāfi‘ī, Imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and Qāḍī Abū Yūsuf
adopted an untenable stance on this issue. These people invented strange and
queer arguments to accommodate the narratives by the inventors. Some of them
held that no body can be declared non-Muslim even if he adheres to waywardness
and interprets the sources according to his whims. This leads to the
conclusion, they say, that the aḥādīth narrated by him should not be
rejected. Thus, according to them, someone offering wrong interpretation of a
religious text may not be condemned as a non-believer. This view is obviously
weak and untenable. We know that open and clear rejection of Islam is seldom
committed. Mostly people take shelter in baseless reinterpretations of the
texts. That is why the Shī‘ī, Khawārij, Murjites, Qadariyyah and many other
sects give a particular interpretation to the texts which accords to their
beliefs and personal leanings and then declare it the true form of religion
which they profess and follow. We see that, even in this day, many kinds of
waywardness are being adopted which are not declared and professed openly. Nor
can such waywardness be considered an open rejection of the faith. Contrarily,
all such transgressions are incorporated in the religion through reliance on
misinterpretation and reinterpretation of the source texts. Therefore, the
accommodative attitude our imāms showed in response to the evil of the
inventors is obviously naïve. These scholars have not fully investigated and properly
analyzed the possible consequences and implications of their view.
Some
scholars on the other hand differentiate between the innovators who profess
their adherence to the innovations they introduce and those who do not openly
commit such a transgression. These scholars hold that they would not accept
narratives transmitted by a person who calls other people to adopt the
inventions in the religion he has introduced or which he adheres to. However,
they consider it allowable to accept the aḥādīth narrated by such a
fabricator who himself adheres to heresies but does not call others to follow
it. Thus, according to them, a staunch Shī’ī or Khārijī can narrate acceptable aḥādīth,
if he keeps from openly confessing his heresy and calling others to it. A
little deliberation shows that this viewpoint is not understandable. For the
one who adopts a belief considering it the true religion divulged by God would
not narrate anything other than that which corresponds to his personal views.
He would only narrate things he hears from his religious leaders. This fact
alone renders the stance of the imāms untenable.
Another group of scholars held that we may only reject aḥādīth
by a specific category of the religious innovators. As for other innovators,
their aḥādīth may be accepted and reported further. These scholars,
therefore, accept aḥādīth from all innovators with the only exception
of a certain group called rawāfiḍ. The question, however, is who would
decide which group of the innovators is to be rejected and which is to be
accommodated. Who carries a meter measuring the level of heresy? I believe we
may only set a concrete principle and apply it to all equally. Either all the
innovators are unworthy as narrators or they are acceptable.
The
concessive attitude adopted by the above mentioned three views gradually got
currency. It reigned on the minds of the believers. What is worse is that even
the most expert among the muḥaddithūn accepted narratives from
innovators. This is why the works compiled by these muḥaddithūn contain
a lot of fabrications and weak narratives. This has made it very difficult for
the experts to investigate these narratives afresh and sift the fabrications
from the original and the weak from the sound. Khaṭīb Baghdādī quoted ‘Alī b.
al-Madīnī:
Had I rejected the narrators of aḥādīth
from the people of Baṣrah considering their view on the issue of qadar
(predestination) and had I rejected the narrators from Kūfah doubting their
adherence to shī‘ism, the ḥadīth works would become empty.[10]
In
this connection, another scholar, Muḥammad b. Na‘īm al-Ḍabbī says that when
he asked Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad b. Ya‘qūb about Faḍl b. Muḥammad al-Sha‘rānī,
he replied:
He is a ṣadūq.[11]
However, he was one of the extremist Shī‘īs. It was asked: “You have accepted
his narrative and have reported it in your work “al-Ṣaḥīḥ?” He
replied: This is because the book of my teacher is replete with narratives
transmitted by shī‘ī narrators.[12]
The
teacher here refers to Imām Muslim and the book of the teacher is Ṣaḥīḥ of
Muslim.
Evil
consequences of accepting aḥādīth from the shī‘ī narrators
cannot be discussed in detail here. However, one thing must be kept in mind:
those who cannot differentiate between the genuine and the fabricated swallow
poison taking it to be elixir.
9.6 Conclusion
We can
guard the religion only by sound knowledge. The scholars must develop
understanding of the basic sources of religious knowledge in Islam, the Qur’ān
and the Sunnah. The struggle to safeguard the religion demands firm, sound and
uncompromising faith as well as commitment to obtain the true knowledge.
Aḥādīth help
us know the genuine Sunnah of the Prophet (sws). The ḥadīth literature
is the record of the Sunnah. Muslim scholars have indeed put unparalleled
efforts to preserve the prophetic knowledge. At the same time, it is also true
that endeavours of evil factions to fabricate aḥādīth have left their
marks on the literature. Fabrication was done for pious as well as evil
motives. The muḥaddithūn needed to show more care in closing the door
for fabricators. Their weak response to fabricators’ efforts made it possible
for the latter to disseminate fabrications which found way into all the major ḥadīth
works.
Presently
it is incumbent upon every such scholar as specializes in the ḥadīth studies
to make sure that the ḥadīth he is relying on in an issue is actually
the word of the Prophet (sws) and is in accord with the Qur’ānic teachings on
the issue. It should not be affected by the onslaughts of the innovators.
_____________
[1]. Ibid.,
158.
[2]. Ibid.
[3]. Ibid.
[4]. Ibid.,
159.
[5]. Ibid.
[6]. The
author of the article on Murjites in Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam writes:
“One of the early sects of Islam, the extreme opponents of the Khawārij. The
latter thought that a Muslim by committing a moral sin becomes a kāfir.
The Murji’ah, on the other hand, were of opinion that a Muslim does not lose
his faith through sin.”
[7]. Khaṭīb
Baghdādī, al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah, 158.
[8]. Ibid.
[9]. Ibid., 159.
[10]. Ibid.,
129.
[11]. The
term ṣadūq is applied to those of the narrators who are considered to
be somewhat reliable but not thiqah (reliable).
[12]. Ibid., 131.
Comments
Post a Comment