Books of Hadith and the Fiqhi Mazhabs (Jurisprudential Schools of Thought)
Al Bukhari, Muslim, and the Banu Umayyah
December 9, 2022Absolute Reverence for the Authentic Books
December 9, 2022BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Books of Hadith and the Fiqhi Mazhabs (Jurisprudential Schools of Thought)
The author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut claims that the Sunni books of hadith have no place in the foundation of the Sunni Mazhabs of Fiqh (jurisprudential schools of thought). These Mazhabs of Fiqh were founded before the appearance of the books of hadith and there was no need for al Bukhari or Muslim. Hence, there was no jurisprudential benefit in these books. Therefore, their object was to present the Umayyad narrations of Islam and those views hostile to the Ahlul Bayt.
Concerning this claim, he writes:
Verily founders of the four Mazhabs of fiqh compiled their fiqh before the advent of al Bukhari or Muslim. The last of these jurists, i.e. al Shafi’i (150–204 AH/767–820 CE) and Ibn Hambal (164–241 AH/780–855) passed away before the advent of these books.[1] Al Bukhari passed away after the last jurists (al Shafi’i and Ahmed ibn Hambal).[2] These books (al Bukhari and Muslim) only form a parallel source for the four schools of thought and they were never the original source for these Mazhabs.[3]
Is this claim correct?
Indeed, the truth emanating from historical dates indicates that these Imams towards whom, the one who authored Bayt al ‘Ankabut alluded to, were in fact contemporaries.
Al Bukhari passed away in 256 AH.
Muslim passed away in 261 AH.
Al Shafi’i passed away in 204 AH.
Ahmed ibn Hanbal passed away in 241 AH.
If the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut only pondered on these dates then he would not have made such claims.
As for his claim that ‘these books only form a parallel source for the four schools of thought and they were never the original source for these mazhabs’, this is a claim of a person who does not understand the concept of Mazhabs. A Mazhab does not end in the time of its founder. It continues to grow through the centuries. In those centuries, the books of hadith became the source for the progress of those Mazhabs and a source of developing jurisprudential investigations in its laws.
The founders of these schools of thought who were before al Bukhari and Muslim relied on compilations of hadith for the establishment of their Mazhabs. These compilations were later included in Sahih al Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and other books of hadith.
However, is the issue here, the link between the Sunni Mazhabs of fiqh and the books of hadith or is it the enmity of the Shia towards the Sunni books of hadith, particularly the most authentic ones i.e. Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim?
The Maliki Mazhab is based upon al Muwatta’. This is a book of hadith. The Shia’s enmity towards it and its founder Malik (93–179 AH/712–795 CE) is clear, famous, and intense.
The Hambali Mazhab is based on the Musnad of Ahmed. It contains more ahadith than Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Many do not fulfill the conditions of al Bukhari and Muslim. The Shia’s enmity towards Ahmed (164–241 AH/780–855 CE) and his Musnad is clear and intense.
Is it not that the fiqh of the Zaidiyyah is based on the Majmu’ah of Zaid ibn’Ali (79–122 AH/698–740 CE) ? This is also a book of hadith.
Is the fiqh of the Jafaris not based on the books of hadith of the Imamiyyah which were fabricated by early Akhbaris? They dissociate from reason, claiming that it has no say in Din, as well as Ijma’ (consensus) because this was the method of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They even dissociate from the Qur’an because the addressees (according to them) are the Imams only and not the masses; and because it has been distorted and changed through addition and deletion [as they claim].[4]
Why is this all accepted? Why is the denial and disapproval only for the consensus of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, that Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are the most authentic books of hadith, i.e., the most authentic source after the Book of Allah, the Qur’an?
The Shia made al Kulayni the most trustworthy person in Islam. They based their beliefs and fiqh (the fundamental and secondary laws) on his book al Kafi. A book; that questions the divine preservation of the Qur’an. A book wherein the narrations distorting the Qur’an have reached the level of Tawatur (mass transmission) in meaning. A book, that contains ahadith attributed to the infallible Imams which clearly distort the Qur’an.[5]
Where is Bayt al ‘Ankabut?
Which is worse: The Sunni ahadith books which exalt the Qur’an and protect it from abuse or those books which clearly distort the Qur’an, dissociate from it, and prefer those narrations which the Akhbaris fabricated?
NEXT⇒ Absolute Reverence for the Authentic Books
[1] Bayt al ‘Ankabut, pg. 268.
[2] Ibid., pg. 11.
[3] Ibid., pg. 12.
[4] Ayatollah Murtada Mutahhari: Naqd al Fikr al Dini ‘Ind al Shahid Murtada Mutahhari, pg. 139–144, al Ma’had al ‘Alami li al Fikr al Islami, Washington, 2010.
[5] Al Kulayni: Al Usul min al Kafi, 1/228.
BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Books of Hadith and the Fiqhi Mazhabs (Jurisprudential Schools of Thought)
The author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut claims that the Sunni books of hadith have no place in the foundation of the Sunni Mazhabs of Fiqh (jurisprudential schools of thought). These Mazhabs of Fiqh were founded before the appearance of the books of hadith and there was no need for al Bukhari or Muslim. Hence, there was no jurisprudential benefit in these books. Therefore, their object was to present the Umayyad narrations of Islam and those views hostile to the Ahlul Bayt.
Concerning this claim, he writes:
Verily founders of the four Mazhabs of fiqh compiled their fiqh before the advent of al Bukhari or Muslim. The last of these jurists, i.e. al Shafi’i (150–204 AH/767–820 CE) and Ibn Hambal (164–241 AH/780–855) passed away before the advent of these books.[1] Al Bukhari passed away after the last jurists (al Shafi’i and Ahmed ibn Hambal).[2] These books (al Bukhari and Muslim) only form a parallel source for the four schools of thought and they were never the original source for these Mazhabs.[3]
Is this claim correct?
Indeed, the truth emanating from historical dates indicates that these Imams towards whom, the one who authored Bayt al ‘Ankabut alluded to, were in fact contemporaries.
Al Bukhari passed away in 256 AH.
Muslim passed away in 261 AH.
Al Shafi’i passed away in 204 AH.
Ahmed ibn Hanbal passed away in 241 AH.
If the author of Bayt al ‘Ankabut only pondered on these dates then he would not have made such claims.
As for his claim that ‘these books only form a parallel source for the four schools of thought and they were never the original source for these mazhabs’, this is a claim of a person who does not understand the concept of Mazhabs. A Mazhab does not end in the time of its founder. It continues to grow through the centuries. In those centuries, the books of hadith became the source for the progress of those Mazhabs and a source of developing jurisprudential investigations in its laws.
The founders of these schools of thought who were before al Bukhari and Muslim relied on compilations of hadith for the establishment of their Mazhabs. These compilations were later included in Sahih al Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and other books of hadith.
However, is the issue here, the link between the Sunni Mazhabs of fiqh and the books of hadith or is it the enmity of the Shia towards the Sunni books of hadith, particularly the most authentic ones i.e. Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim?
The Maliki Mazhab is based upon al Muwatta’. This is a book of hadith. The Shia’s enmity towards it and its founder Malik (93–179 AH/712–795 CE) is clear, famous, and intense.
The Hambali Mazhab is based on the Musnad of Ahmed. It contains more ahadith than Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Many do not fulfill the conditions of al Bukhari and Muslim. The Shia’s enmity towards Ahmed (164–241 AH/780–855 CE) and his Musnad is clear and intense.
Is it not that the fiqh of the Zaidiyyah is based on the Majmu’ah of Zaid ibn’Ali (79–122 AH/698–740 CE) ? This is also a book of hadith.
Is the fiqh of the Jafaris not based on the books of hadith of the Imamiyyah which were fabricated by early Akhbaris? They dissociate from reason, claiming that it has no say in Din, as well as Ijma’ (consensus) because this was the method of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They even dissociate from the Qur’an because the addressees (according to them) are the Imams only and not the masses; and because it has been distorted and changed through addition and deletion [as they claim].[4]
Why is this all accepted? Why is the denial and disapproval only for the consensus of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, that Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are the most authentic books of hadith, i.e., the most authentic source after the Book of Allah, the Qur’an?
The Shia made al Kulayni the most trustworthy person in Islam. They based their beliefs and fiqh (the fundamental and secondary laws) on his book al Kafi. A book; that questions the divine preservation of the Qur’an. A book wherein the narrations distorting the Qur’an have reached the level of Tawatur (mass transmission) in meaning. A book, that contains ahadith attributed to the infallible Imams which clearly distort the Qur’an.[5]
Where is Bayt al ‘Ankabut?
Which is worse: The Sunni ahadith books which exalt the Qur’an and protect it from abuse or those books which clearly distort the Qur’an, dissociate from it, and prefer those narrations which the Akhbaris fabricated?
NEXT⇒ Absolute Reverence for the Authentic Books
[1] Bayt al ‘Ankabut, pg. 268.
[2] Ibid., pg. 11.
[3] Ibid., pg. 12.
[4] Ayatollah Murtada Mutahhari: Naqd al Fikr al Dini ‘Ind al Shahid Murtada Mutahhari, pg. 139–144, al Ma’had al ‘Alami li al Fikr al Islami, Washington, 2010.
[5] Al Kulayni: Al Usul min al Kafi, 1/228.