|
I made him swear by God
“According
to a tradition, ‘Ali said: ‘Whenever one transmitted
to me a tradition of the Prophet ﷺ (hadaththani
bi-hadith), I made him swear by God that he had heard
it from God’s messenger. If he swore, I believed him.’
The correct wording is:
"When I heard something from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ,
Allah swt would benefit me with it as He wished; but when
someone other than him narrated it to me, I would make him
swear to it; if he took an oath, I would believe him."
Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (hasan), Abu Dawud with a sound
chain, Ahmad with two chains in the Musnad and also in
Fada'il al-Sahaba (1:159 #142), and Abu Yaʿla and al-
Humaydi in their Musnads. It is cited in the books of
Tafsir for the verse: {Yet whoso does evil or wrongs his
own soul, then seeks pardon of Allah, will find Allah
Forgiving, Merciful} (4:110).
“Al-Nazzam’s razor-sharp mind picked up a grave defect
in this report. He pointed out that the transmitter
must be, in ‘Ali’s views either a trustworthy person
(thiqa) or an untrustworthy person (muttaham). Now, if
he is trustworthy, making him swear had no meaning,
This premise is flawed, because he might be a truthful
person with a bad memory; or a truthful memorizer
reporting a meaning rather than an actual wording.
As for a possible forger, he would not stand in front
of ʿAli long enough for a Nazzam to write "muttaham."
and if he is untrustworthy, how will the saying of the
untrustworthy person prove true through his oath? If
it is possible for him to transmit false tradition, it
is possible for him to swear falsely.
A solemn oath does not constitute a verification but
makes the speaker introduce Allah Most High as the direct
witness of his own speech. This is not a light step,
especially to Arab Muslims of the first/second layer.
“Thus, Al-Nazzam
draws two fatal conclusions here, (a) ‘Ali’s
reputation as a wise scholar (according to this
particular report) is impaired, for he established an
unreasonable procedure for accepting traditions; and
(b) all the traditions in which ‘Ali is a transmitter
may be suspected as unreliable.”
ʿAli was speaking either to a Companion or (very
unlikely but possible) to a Tabiʿi. According to
the Prophet's ﷺ hadith about the best of
generations, it is far more likely that the liar
in this whole story is al-Nazzam himself - a
man of the eighth layer - rather than the
Prophet's ﷺ cousin (ra) or his interlocutor.
Note that in that hadith the Prophet ﷺ said
that the first three layers of the Muslims are the
best ever, after which (1) lying would abound and
(2) people would swear oaths before being asked to.
More, in the time of ʿAli and the succeeding generation,
the forgers could be counted on the fingers of the hand.
In the time of al-Nazzam (d. ~220-230) they were
epidemic. It took the great Huffaz to exterminate them.
A razor-sharp mind? Try Ahmad ibn Hanbal (ra).
1. How did the Hadith Masters respond to the point
which al-Nazzam made about Sayyidina ‘Ali
[karram’Allahu wajh – is that a correct
transliteration of the honorific? By the way, why do
we say this after Sayyidina ‘Ali’s name, and not any
other Sahabi?]
karram-Allahu wajhah
The Prophet ﷺ is related to say: To look at the
face of ʿAli is worship. He did not say this of any
other Sahaba, although he said it of all parents
also, and of the Kaʿba, the sea, and the Qur'an.
He also spat into Sayyidina ʿAli's eyes and cured
him of ophthalmia (a miracle) after which ʿAli took
up the flag and Khaybar was conquered at his hand.
ʿAli is the husband of the Zahra' [virgin] of the
Prophet ﷺ and the father of his ﷺ two
rayhana [fragrances], al-Hasan and al-Husayn.
The hadith Masters did not consider the Muʿtazila
qualified to discuss the strengths or defects of
hadith. They considered they did not pay their dues
in the pursuit of hadith study and this does show
- painfully - in most Muʿtazili and Shiʿi arguments.
There is also their perpetual internecine squabbles
- mocked, as I posted before, by Ibn Qutayba:
Abu al-Hudhayl al-ʿAllaf (d. 230), the chief Muʿtazili
of Basra who disagrees with his colleague al-Nazzam;
the Muʿtazili al-Najjar who disagrees with both of
them; the Shiʿi anthropomorphist Hisham ibn al-Hakam
(d. 148) who disagrees with al-Najjar; the Muʿtazili
Thumama ibn Ashras who disagrees with Ibn al-Hakam;
etc. During a debate al-Najjar held with al-Nazzam
a scuffle ensued and the latter kicked al-Najjar, soon
after which he died. Whoever prefers such models to
the likes of al-Shafiʿi and al-Bukhari, pity him.
“Please note that this was the early Muslim reaction
to the hadith. This is not modern, orientalist
scholarship. Ibn al-Rawandi in his Zumurrud, raises a
few other rational considerations.
And, lest we forget, Nietzsche in his Zarathustra.
This is why the Muʿtazila and their sub-sects, just
like the Khawarij and their sub-sects as well as the
Shiʿi and their subsects - all really innumerable -
were and are excluded, inside Islam, from consideration
in this debate. Christians, orientalists, etc. fail
to understand why, because they know Islam from the
outside only, from books and so forth. They think
Ibn al-Rawandi is an undiscovered genius, al-Jubba'i
a misunderstood mental giant, etc.
“Traditions
concerning miracles are inevitably problematic.”
But of course. It is a Muʿtazili pillar to deny the
validity of miracles. When confronted with the
Qur'anic nass for Musa (as), they resort to allegory.
“At the
time of the performance of the supposed miracle only a
small number of people could be close enough to the
Prophet to observe his deeds.
Balderdash. Masses observed the splitting of the moon.
Some believed, some said: This is magic.
“Reports given by such a
small number of people cannot be trusted (a la David
Hume, cf. Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,
Section X. On Miracles). Muslim tradition therefore,
argues al-Rawandi, falls into the category of flimsy
traditions, which are based on a single authority
(habar al-ahad) rather than multiple authorities
(habar mutawatir).
Actually, there are mass-narrated (mutawatir) miracles
in the Sunna, such as the moaning of the tree during
khutba one time, and the watering of the Muslim army
through the Prophet's holy hand one time. This is a
shining proof that the ahad excuse is a transparent
lie, since the Muʿtazila also reject the above miracles.
“The coup de grace al-Rawandi
presents is devastating. He points out that the
Prophet’s own stipulations and systems show that
religious traditions are not trustworthy. The Jews and
Christians for example say that Jesus really died, but
the Qur’an contradicts them.”
Where in the Qur'an does it say that Jesus did not die?
2. How did the Hadith Masters, and the Ulema in
general, consider Ibn al-Rawandi? Who was he, and what
is the weight of the points he made above?
Also called Ibn al-Riwandi (d. 298). An ex-Muʿtazili
atheist of Jewish origin from Merv. He kept company
with atheists and Rafida (extreme Shiʿis) claiming
"I only want to know their positions." The Muʿtazila
(eg Jubba'i and al-Khayyat) wrote books against him.
He jumped from creed to creed. Abul-ʿAbbas al-Tabari
(d. 335) said Ibn al-Rawandi was commissioned to
author a book against Islam which he did, then was
paid double for promising not to refute it. Al-Balkhi
said: "His learning exceeded his intelligence."
Ibn al-Jawzi said: "Author of doubtless, certifiable
rantings he wrote for the Jews and Christians to use
as arguments against the Religion" while Ibn ʿAqil
wondered how on earth he was never put to death.
Al-Dhahabi reports the above, commenting: Thanks to
Allah for simple faith devoid of useless intelligence.
3. I understand the concept behind mutawatir hadith
yielding definite knowledge, since it is impossible
that so many could have conspired to fabricate a lie.
However, yesterday I got to wondering, why then could
not christians also claim the truth of, say, the
trinity, based on it being transmitted by tawatur?
For tawatur to exist it is not merely a question of
number but of time. In other words, it must begin at
the *earliest* link with the Prophetic source. Whereas
the Christians' earliest, next-to-earliest, and next
links are all missing from their transmission of this
purported doctrine of Christ. It is born as a mass-
transmission only at a council of miters centuries later.
4. I think I understand the Ash’ari position
concerning causation, that it is Allah ta’ala who is
the Musabbib [Causator]. I have also read what you
translated of Dr Buti’s remarks in the article
‘Foreordained Destiny and the Inefficacy of Material
Causes-and-Effects’. My question is how is such
comprehension not confused with hulul [indwelling?],
or whatever other term might imply the overlap between
Allah ta’ala and the acts that take place in creation
if hulul is the wrong word? That is, if Allah ta’ala
is – and please correct me in how not to breach the
adab towards Allah ta’ala when trying to articulate
such a point - an *active agent* in the acts which
occur in the domain of the sensory/material world,
with respect to cause and effect, then how does that
not imply that He (awj) is a part of it,
astaghfirullah? Especially when one reads such
explanation of the Ash’ari standpoint as articulated
by Professor Mohammad Hashim Kamali in his article
‘Causality and Divine Action: The Islamic
Perspective,’ wherein he writes:
“The Ash‘ariyya denied the Aristotelian notion of
causality and provided an alternative version of their
own which may be summarised as follows:
The world which means everything other than God,
consists of transitory elements, atoms and accidents,
created and recreated from one instantaneous period to
the next. The world is thus not only created
ex-nihilio but it is kept in existence by a process of
continuous recreation out of nothing, with God’s power
and will being the only cause and explanation for its
continuity.”
http://www.kalam.org/papers/kamali.htm
The complete Ashʿari position presupposes taqdis of
Allah subhan wa Taʿala. I.e. His absolute transcendence
beyond anything created and any notion of indwelling
or being part of anything (and it is "ex nihilo").
I read the extensive passage you quoted from al-Fajr
al-Sadiq of Shaykh al-Zahawi [raheemahullah]. As I
read it I wondered if the word *reason* was not being
used in more than one context at different points?
Yes, it is sometimes used in the sense of ʿaql (the
mind or intellect), and sometimes in the sense of
the capacity for asbtraction and intellection.
“There is no doubt that when reason and the
transmitted text contradict each other, the
transmitted text is interpreted by reason.” [p84]
“Clearly one can affirm the transmitted text only by
virtue of reason.” [p85]
But you are right in questioning the above statements.
They do have a Muʿtazili ring to them. Perhaps, it
would be more correct to say: "When two transmitted
texts of equal strength contradict one another,
one of them is interpreted by reason in accordance
with lexical and other critera." And Allah knows best.
I have always understood
that reason plays a different role prior to accepting
Islam, and post-acceptance. Prior to Islam, it is used
as a tool to affirm the truth of the aqeedah – and
that necessarily includes the wahy – but *after*, its
role is second to the authority of the naql.
Agreed.
Of couse I’m not denying that the
aql still has a role, just that the role is *not* to
rationalise the naql.
Yes, the great mistake of the Muʿtazila was to make
human intellect the ultimate judge. This is, of
course, the essence of modernism and it is no
wonder at all they appeal to free-thinkers.
I have been confused for ages now as to which
honorifics one is supposed to use when, from amongst
the following:
Radhiallah, Raheem’Allah, Rahmatullah, etc. When is
each used, and what are the differences in meaning??
And how to adopt them to make sure they’re accurate in
a gender-specific context? And further, how to
correctly pluralise them??
Taraddi:
RadyAllahu ʿanh, ʿanha (fem.), ʿanhuma (dual),
ʿanhum (pl.) --> Sahaba and early Imams.
Tarahhum:
Rahimahullah, rahimahallah, rahimahumallah;
rahmatullah ʿalayh, ʿalayha, ʿalayhima, ʿalayhim --> every Muslim.
However, Taraddi is sometimes used for later figures
such as the great Awliya'. WAllahu aʿlam.
Was-Salam
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad ©
Qasyoun_
| 
