Natural aspects of narration in the era of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum after the demise of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Natural aspects of narration in the era of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum after the demise of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam

 

In this discussion, I will establish that the naturalism of narration was clearly manifest in several aspects during the era of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum—other than what was mentioned previously—and that if the narration had been fundamentally fabricated or forged, it would not have reached us in this natural way, which is usually unlikely to be fabricated with all that accuracy. Perhaps, the most important natural aspects are three:

The first aspect is naturalism in paying more attention to memorisation than writing. The second aspect is the naturalism in the large number of women in the class of Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. The third aspect is naturalism in the formation of the Isnad (chain of transmission) and its relationship to social and political variables.

 

1. Naturalism in paying more attention to memorisation than writing

The narration of Hadith in the era of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum relied heavily on memorisation and oral transmission, without relying on writing as previously mentioned many times. In fact, some of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum disliked writing down Hadith and this opinion continued among some of the Tabi’in.^[1] One of the reasons that prompted them to do so is they feared that the writer would become dependent on what is written and not memorise it, then memorisation would decrease,^[2] which was consistent with the nature of the society at that time in terms of emphasis on memorisation and focus on it. The Arabs were renowned for their memory and were specialists in it. Those who disliked writing, such as Ibn ‘Abbas, al Sha’bi, Ibn Shihab, al Nakha’i, Qatadah, and those who followed their school and were moulded in accordance to their disposition, were disposed by nature to memorise. Do you not see what Ibn Shihab would say?

 

إني لأمرّ بالبقيع فأسد آذاني مخافة أن يدخل فيها شيء من الخنا فوالله ما دخل أذني شيء قط فنسيته

I pass by al Baqi’ and close my ears for fear that something obscene might enter it. By Allah, nothing has ever entered my ears and I have forgotten it.

 

Similar content is narrated from al Sha’bi. These are all Arabs; and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

 

نحن أمة أمية لا نكتب ولا نحسب

We are an illiterate nation. We neither write nor calculate.^[3]

 

It is well-known that the Arabs specialised in memorisation. Some of them memorised each other’s poems by listening to them once. It is reported that Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu memorised the poem of ‘Umar ibn Abi Rabi’ah, “Is it from the family of Nu’m that you are leaving tomorrow, so early …” by listening to it only once, according to what they mentioned. No one is like this today.^[4]

The natural focus on memorisation rather than writing is supported by the fact that basic writing tools were not widely available at that time, the most important of which was paper. The Arabs did not know how to produce paper in the first century AH. Paper only became properly available to them at the beginning of the second century and began to spread in the second quarter of the second century AH. Its entry was linked to global changes such as the entry of Islam into some cities of China and the arrival of some Chinese delegations who taught papermaking in Muslim countries.

If there were transmissions that indicate that writing was more widespread than memorisation, great doubt would engulf them, as writing tools were not available. Soon we will come to know that the spread of paper in the second quarter of the second century greatly eased the task of scholars in authoring. Thus, books spread widely within a few years.

In any case, the view of the reprehensibility of writing was not the view of the majority of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Most of them were of the view of the permissibility of writing as were the Tabi’in.^[5] However, there is a difference between declaring the permissibility of writing and informing that it was the basic foundation of transmission. The first is natural, unlike the second, even though the view of reprehensibility was almost extinct during the class of the Atba’ al Tabi’in (Successors of the Tabi’in) and those after them, as the scholars unanimously agreed on the permissibility of writing.^[6]

Among the evidence for those who opined that writing was permissible is the proven permission of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam for it. Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu stated:

 

ما من أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أحد أكثر حديثا عنه مني إلا ما كان من عبد الله بن عمرو فإنه كان يكتب ولا أكتب

None of the Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam narrated more from him than me except for ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr, as he used to write and I did not.^[7]

 

He also granted permission to ‘Abdullah by saying:

 

اكتب فوالذي نفسي بيده لا يخرج منه إلا حق

Write, for by the One in whose hand is my life, nothing will come out of it (my mouth) except the truth.^[8]

 

Similarly, permission to write was granted in the hadith of Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu when Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala conquered Makkah for the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam stood up among the people, glorified Allah and praised Him, and then said:

 

إن‏ الله حبس عن مكة الفيل وسلط عليها رسوله والمؤمنين … فقام أبو شاه رجل من أهل اليمن فقال اكتبوا لي يا رسول الله فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أكتبوا لإبي شاه

“Allah withheld the elephant from Makkah and granted His Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the believers authority over it.”

Abu Shah, a man from Yemen, stood up and submitted, “Write it for me, O Messenger of Allah.”

The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Write for Abu Shah.”^[9]

 

As for the hadith of Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarding the prohibition of writing, wherein the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

 

لا تكتبوا عني ومن كتب عني غير القرآن فليمحه وحدثوا عني ولا حرج

Do not write from me; and whoever writes from me anything other than the Qur’an should erase it. Narrate from me and there is no harm.^[10]

 

This narration is not authentically established as a Marfu’ narration from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam—according to the opinion of al Bukhari and Abu Dawood^[11]. Rather it is a Mawquf^[12] narration of Abu Sa’id. Assuming that it is authentic, it will be interpreted contrary to its general, apparent meaning to reconcile it with the other narrations.^[13]

However, it may be said that the lack of writing at that time makes us neither trust the authenticity of the ahadith nor rely on them.

In my opinion, the starting point of the objection is problematic. That is, it stems from projecting contemporary reality onto distant centuries that have passed. In fact, we will notice a huge difference between the method of documentation for transmission in the first century that relied on memorisation and the method of documentation in the third century that relied on writing. To project one reality onto another reality that is far from it, is a methodological problem.

The fundamental aspect in this entire study is to ensure that there is a method that regulates the transmission of texts, whether written or oral. We may find written texts, but they might not be proven and we might not trust them due to many evidences. We may find oral texts, but they might be precise and accurate. This continues in our time, as we may trust the transmission of some of those who are known for their memorisation and accuracy, and we may not trust the writing of those who are not like that. Thus, what matters is the documentation methodology, not the tool itself.

Some contemporaries have exaggerated the idea that it is disliked to write Hadith and made it a foundation in the chapter.^[14] They deduce from it that Hadith is not authoritative. This is an opinion that is problematic in several ways:

Firstly: By exaggerating the idea of writing and its importance in that century, we ignore the Arabs’ nature of memorisation.

Secondly: In exaggerating the importance of writing, we ignore the nature of receiving oral knowledge and its continuous study in that era to the point that some scholars in the era of the predecessors chose to destroy their books at the time of their death for fear that it would go to someone who was not a scholar, who might not know their rulings, interpret everything according to its apparent meaning, and perhaps add or subtract something, and this would be attributed to its writer in the original.^[15] This is supported by al Awza’i’s statement:

 

كان هذا العلم كريما تتلاقاه الرجال بينهم فلما دخل في الكتب دخل فيه غير أهله

This knowledge was noble; men shared it among themselves. When it entered the books, unworthy people entered into it.^[16]

 

In fact, some linguists of those eras state that knowledge cannot be achieved through writing. Tha’lab said:

 

إذا أردت أن تكون عالما فاكسر القلم

If you want to be a scholar, break the pen.^[17]

 

Thirdly: In exaggerating the importance of writing, we ignore the importance of the critical authority that regulates the transmission of narration, whether it is an oral narration or a written narration, for what matters is the authenticity of what is transmitted, whether it is oral or written. If there was a methodology of criticism and a critical authority that investigates the narrations, that would be sufficient in accepting them. It may be such that the text is written but criticised^[18] or it may be oral and not criticised, due to circumstances, evidence, and conditions surrounding each text. This is an established matter in ancient and modern times.

Acceptance and criticism in all of this are based primarily on conjecture, not on certainty. Muhaddithin in the past have established that acceptance of all these narrations is speculative, and not a certainty.

Fourthly: The science of oral history—which appeared in the West around 1948 CE and uses oral sources to rebuild the structure of history^[19]—restores consideration to oral narration, objecting to the postulates of the ‘group of conventional historians’ who say that the written document is the one and only form that experimental evidence regards as valuable.^[20] It is the same concept that became popular at the end of the nineteenth century and in the twentieth century in Europe,^[21] considering that oral history is ‘an unreliable history, a less important and lower-level source than written history with a European character.’ Through this reductive view, Hadith narrations in the first century were criticised for being oral narrations.

However, the situation has changed in recent decades and serious studies have increased that restore consideration to oral history,^[22] establishing that accepting oral narration in this science does not mean accepting it randomly, but rather, it is treated in a critical manner in the same way that any historian treats written sources, i.e. documents^[23] and that ‘the memoirs that highlight the result of this process (oral history) are a new type of historical document’.^[24]

When consideration for oral narration is restored in societies full of writing tools and official documentation, then for it to be restored in societies where writing tools are scarce is more likely and more important. This is especially since the science of oral history stipulates that the historian is the one who strives to discover what actually happened in the past and inform his society according to the rules of historical consideration,^[25] without projecting the modern culture of his society onto a culture that is extremely far from it.

Fifthly: There is no correlation between the authority of the Hadith, prophetic text and it being written. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sent Muaz ibn Jabal and Abu Musa al Ash’ari to Yemen to teach the people, but he did not send anything written with them.

Sixthly: This difference was famous and well-known, but no one deduced from the view of the prohibition of writing the non-reliance on ahadith found in Hadith books.^[26] Thus, it is contrary to the work of all scholars.

As for the attention of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum in that era to writing the Qur’an and not the Hadith, there are several possibilities. Some are:

The ahadith spread in Muslim countries. Some of them were concealed from others. Moreover, the words of the Sunnah were not protected from addition or subtraction. Thus, their consensus was on the words of the Qur’an, contrary to the Sunnah. Hence, it was not valid to write down what they disagreed over. If they had aspired to memorise the Sunnah, as they were able to memorise the Qur’an, they would not have failed to compile it. However, they feared that if they wrote down what they did not dispute, the basis for any view would be placed on the recorded and people would falsify what was left out of the compilation, which would result in a large amount of the Sunnah being invalidated. Therefore, they expanded the path of acquisition for the Ummah, so they paid attention to collecting it as much as each one could take care of himself^[27]. Or this was because those Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum feared that the Hadith would be compared to the Book of Allah or because they feared that Muslims would pay attention to something other than the Qur’an, which would distract them from the Qur’an.^[28]

 

2. The naturalism of the large number of women in the class of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum

The era of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum was distinguished by a large number of female Companions compared to subsequent eras where the number of women narrators decreased, particularly in the second century AH onwards. The number of female Companions mentioned in the six books of the Sunnah is 129. The number continued to decrease throughout the ages in the first three centuries. In fact, the number was very small in the third century AH,^[29] which is natural. In fact, it indicates that Hadith narration was transmitted in a clear natural way—because most of the narration in the first century was based on social relations more than mere scholarly relations. Thus, in the first century, the narrator’s reports from his father, mother, maternal aunt, and paternal aunt, or the slave’s narrations from his master and his mistress, increased in abundance and narrating Hadith due to some need increased. It has been mentioned previously that most of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum hardly narrated anything except at the time of a need. In many cases, that need was related to a social or religious situation that occurred to him in the presence of his relatives or those who knew him, unlike the transmission in the second century, especially in the second half of it, as the “methodological” narration at that time dominated the scholarly situation.^[30] In the methodological narration, the Sheikh usually sits in the Masjid or in his house and students come to him and read to or listen to him, then leave. Students would travel to him from the farthest parts of the country. All of this becomes clear in the style of Imam Malik’s narration, as will be mentioned in due course. It is well-known that a woman’s journey alone in those eras was impossible, socially and religiously. Hence, men prevailed as the majority narrators in the second half of the second century and beyond.

Similarly, the naturalism becomes evident in the narration of female Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhunna in that the most notable and prolific narrating female Companions among them were the pure wives of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This is also a natural thing due to their intense closeness to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

It is natural that from amongst the female Companions, Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha narrates the most ahadith as she was his wife. She was not like any other women. She was the wife for whom the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam declared more love than the others.^[31] Thus, she was not like other women. There are several factors added to the reasons for her frequent narrating. Amongst them is that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam married her at a very young age. This made it more likely for her to memorise everything about him and remember all the details, knowledge, and history. Another factor is her nature in paying attention to knowledge was very high. This becomes clear in the fact that she did not suffice on Shar’i matters only, but rather extended that to language, history, genealogy etc. Through her precise observation, she reached the point that she learned medicine. Her nephew, ‘Urwah ibn al Zubair, was amazed at her and said:

 

لقد صحبت عائشة فما رأيت أحدا قط كان أعلم بآية أنزلت ولا بفريضة ولا بسنة ولا بشعر ولا أروى له ولا بيوم من أيام العرب ولا بنسب ولا بكذا ولا بكذا ولا بقضاء ولا طب منها فقلت لها يا خالة الطب من أين علمته فقالت كنت أمرض فينعت لي الشيء ويمرض المريض فينعت له وأسمع الناس ينعت بعضهم لبعض فأحفظه

I accompanied Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha. I have never seen anyone more knowledgeable and a greater transmitter about a verse revealed, an obligation, the Sunnah, poetry, any significant event of the Arabs, lineage, this and that, judgement, or medicine than her.

I asked her, “O Aunt, where did you learn medicine from?”

She explained, “I would fall ill and something would be prescribed for me; a person would get sick and certain things would be prescribed for him; and I would hear people prescribing things to each other, so I would memorise these.”^[32]

 

All of this is in addition to her strong personality, which becomes apparent through her frequent redressing the other Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum regarding some of their narrations and becomes more apparent in her going out to the Battle of the Camel. If she could lead armies, then she is more worthy of leading in the issues of knowledge and education.

One of the specialities of Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha was that her death was at a later stage (d. 57 AH). Thus, many people acquired knowledge from her, delegations would come to her, and extremely distinguished students singled her out. Three of the most distinguished students of that time gathered by her, all of whom had the right to accompany her and acquire knowledge from her in many situations, even private ones. They are ‘Urwah ibn al Zubair, her sister’s son, Qasim ibn Muhammad, her brother’s son, and ‘Amrah bint ‘Abdul Rahman.^[33]

This was not possible for other Mothers of the Believers, for much of their knowledge was not transmitted from them and they did not have distinguished students who specialised in them as much as these, in addition to the fact that of many of them passed away at an early age. Thus, Zainab, the Mother of the Believers radiya Llahu ‘anha, passed away in the year 20 AH, Hafsah radiya Llahu ‘anha in the year 41 AH, Umm Habibah radiya Llahu ‘anha in the year 44 AH, and the last of them to leave this world was Umm Salamah radiya Llahu ‘anha in 62 AH. Therefore, there were more ahadith from her than others, but it was not possible for her to have students who specialised in her. She was not on the level of Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or like her in accuracy of observation, intelligence, and learning; so her narrations were much less. Allah knows best.

All of this shows naturalness in the large number of narrations by Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha, then the large number of narrations by the pure wives of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then the large number of female narrators among the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, not those in the second half of the second century onwards. This shows that the Hadith was transmitted in a natural, smooth, and spontaneous way, and the hand of forgery could not infiltrate its roots and foundations.

 

3. Naturalism in the formation of the Isnad (chain of transmission) and its relationship to social and political variables

I will establish in this discussion that Isnad began to form in a natural way. The most important thing about that naturalness is necessity, because the chain of transmission, its mention, and its continuity did not occur at a specific moment in time and did not include all the countries and all the narrators, but rather attention to it was according to the natural need for it.

It may have begun in some countries before others, with some scholars of that country before others, and for some social, political, and scholarly circumstances and not others. I claim that if Isnad had started in an organised way and with a clear methodology in a specific time and included all narrators, it would have been viewed a forgery and that a group from the second or the third century forged it with this complete organisation and attributed it to the first century. This is because the methodology of mentioning regular chains of transmission was unusual in the Arab countries, in addition to the fact that organisation and arrangement from the beginnings of any scholarly movement that is not central, is almost impossible.

When one notices that Isnad began to form according to different needs, depending on different countries, the needs of the narrators there, and some political, social, and religious variable situations, in the first century; it is possible to understand the differences in the texts transmitted in the beginning of Isnad in the first century.

One aspect is that it is well-known that some of the junior Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum would transmit ahadith from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam without mentioning which of the senior Companions narrated it. At times, he would become angry if he was questioned about that, as was reported about Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu (d. 93 AH), when he was asked about a hadith he narrated:

 

أنت سمعت هذا من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم  فغضب ثم قال ما‏ كل ما نحدثكم سمعناه من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وما كان بعضنا يكذب على بعض

“Did you hear this from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?”

He became angry and said, “Not everything we narrate to you did we hear directly from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. None of us would lie in the name of another.”^[34]

 

It is known that Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu (d. 68 AH), for example, did not hear everything that he attributed to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away when he was a young man, but he heard from many of the senior Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum and did not see the need to mention the entire chain of transmission.^[35] The reason for all of this is that the need to mention the entire chain of transmission was almost non-existent in such cases. In the eyes of his students, he is a great, trustworthy, and highly respected Sahabi. Lying in the name of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam cannot be expected from him.

The situation continued with some of the Tabi’in not mentioning the intermediary. The great Tabi’i, Sa’id ibn Jubayr (d. 95 AH), also became angry when he narrated a hadith, and a person asked him, “Who narrated this to you?” He became angry and prevented the students from speaking to him until he went away.^[36] Sa’id ibn Jubayr was one of the most distinguished, reliable students of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Perhaps, he thought that such an investigation was not appropriate in that situation and there was no need for it. Similar was the position of Hassan al Basri (d. 110 AH). He was told:

 

إنك تحدثنا فتقول قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولو كنت تُسند لنا إلى من حدثك أجاب أيها الرجل إنا والله ما كذبنا ولاكذِّبنا ولقد غزوت غزوة إلى خراسان ومعنا فيها ثلاثمئة من أصحاب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم

“You narrate to us and say that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam stated. If only you could mention the chain of transmission to us as to who narrated it to you.”

He replied, “O man, by Allah, we do not lie and we were not lied to. I fought in a battle in Khorasan. There were three hundred Companions of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with us.”^[37]

 

As if he was objecting to the question itself and saying that we heard these ahadith from dozens of Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. We memorised and remembered them. What is the need for this question? In fact, the situation remained like this among some of the younger Tabi’in as well. Zaid ibn Aslam (d. 136 AH) narrated a mursal hadith^[38], and was asked:

 

عمن يا أبا أسامة فأجاب بقوله ما كنا نجالس السفهاء ولا نحمل عنهم

“From whom (are you narrating), O Abu Usamah?”

He replied by saying, “We did not sit with the foolish people nor did we narrate from them.”^[39]

 

This means that mentioning the chain of transmission was not a general methodology among all narrators that included all countries. Rather, it depended greatly on various needs and circumstances.

Due to this difference, we find that some Tabi’in narrated many mursal ahadith and did not bother to mention the chain of transmission in full, while others adhered to the chain of transmission from the beginning and encouraged it, even if they were in the same town. Perhaps, one of the most prominent of them in this regard was the great Tabi’i, Muhammad ibn Sirin (d. 110 AH). He would mention the chain of transmission of most of his ahadith and paid attention to that, unlike his compatriot Hassan al Basri (d. 110 AH). Hence, the famous statement of Ibn Sirin:

 

إن هذا العلم دين فانظروا عمن تأخذون دينكم

This knowledge is din, so be careful from whom you take your religion.^[40]

 

His statement to some of his students is reported as:

 

لا تحدثنا عن الحسن ولا عن أبي العالية فإنهما لا يباليان عمن أخذا الحديث

Do not narrate to us from Hassan or Abu al ‘Aliyah, for they do not care from whom they learn Hadith.^[41]

 

Amongst the differences is that an entire group of narrators did not worry about Isnad in some countries, but not others, in the first century. It was known about the people of Greater Syria in the first century that they were not concerned and did not pay attention to Isnad. When al Zuhri (d. 124 AH) came to Greater Syria, he denounced them for narrating Hadith without Isnad. He said:

 

يا‏ أهل الشام ما لي أرى أحاديثكم ليس لها أَزِمّة ولا خُطُم

O people of Greater Syria, why do I see that your ahadith have no bridles or muzzles?^[42]

 

Thenceforth, the people of Greater Syria began showing interest in mentioning Isnad that was already present with them, but they did not see a need for it. Walid ibn Muslim (d. 195 AH) clenched his hand and said:

 

تمسّك أصحابُنا بالأسانيد من يومئذ

Our companions held on to Isnad since that day.^[43]

 

This adherence, i.e. that the teacher is required to mention the one who narrated it to him, was to reveal the intermediary between him and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. In essence, it existed with him, but the requirement was to reveal it. This is indicated by the fact that the great scholar of Greater Syria, Makhul (d. 113 AH), met some Iraqis who asked him about Hadith. He began to narrate to them without any chains of transmission. They then asked him to narrate with the chain of transmission. They asked him, “From whom? Who narrated to you?” Makhul passionately began to mention the chain of transmission. When he was ready to stand up and leave, he laughed and said:

 

هكذا ينبغي لكم يا أهل العراق فلا يصلحكم إلا هذا وأما أصحابنا هؤلاء أهل الشام فيأخذون كما تيسّر

This is suitable for you, O people of Iraq. Nothing is good for you except this. As for our companions, the people of Greater Syria, they take whatever is available.^[44]

 

This is an important story that reveals the difference between the countries at that time and it shows that the chains of transmission were available by Makhul, but he had no desire to mention them in Greater Syria, as there was no need, unlike the demand from the Iraqis. Perhaps, the weakness of the scholarly movement in Greater Syria in the first century compared to the scholarly movement in Iraq and Madinah along with the lack of intellectual conflicts in Greater Syria compared to those countries were of the important reasons for not demanding the chain of transmission and not being passionate about it.^[45] Or perhaps, al Zuhri found some people of Greater Syria who were not trustworthy in Hadith narration and attributing Hadith to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Therefore, he wanted to show strong denial of that, so he declared it, as appears in the story with Ishaq ibn Abi Farwah (d. 144 AH)—who was not trustworthy—who began saying, “The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said; the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said.” Al Zuhri said to him:

 

قاتلك الله يا ابن أبي فروة ما أجرأك على الله ألا تُسند حديثك تحدثنا بأحاديث ليست لها خُطُم ولا أَزِمّة

May Allah destroy you, O Ibn Abi Farwah. How bold you are against Allah! Why do you not mention the chain of your ahadith to us? You narrate ahadith to us that have no muzzles or bridles.^[46]

 

Perhaps, that was the reason for Imam Malik’s (d. 179 AH) statement:

 

أول من أسند الحديث ابن شهاب يعني الزهري

The first person to introduce Isnad into Hadith is Ibn Shihab, meaning al Zuhri.^[47]

 

Perhaps he refers to the great attention that had an immense influence in a country like Greater Syria.

The major social and political events were not isolated from having an influence on the importance of Isnad and its system. Perhaps, the important trial that influenced Hadith narration and lying in it^[48] was the mischief of al Mukhtar ibn Abi ‘Ubayd al Thaqafi (d. 67 AH) which occurred between the years 64 AH to 67 AH when he conquered the city of Kufah, took control of it, claimed to possess the knowledge of the unseen and receive revelation, and supported ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (d. 40 AH) and his sons. He gained victory for the Shia. At that time, he was fighting the killers of the Martyr Hussain ibn ‘Ali (d. 61 AH). He pursued them one by one and killed them. The Shia in Kufah rallied around him and announced rebellion against the Caliphate of ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair in Makkah until Ibn al Zubair sent his brother Mus’ab to fight him with a large army and killed him in the year 67 AH.^[49] It is as if that mischief was much more important—in terms of Hadith narration and lying in it—than the strife that occurred between the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum after the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu (d. 35 AH) and the wars of Jamal and Siffin, etc., that followed after that. This is because we do not find explicit texts indicating to the existence of any clear and widespread lies in that era, between the years 40 AH and 60 AH, and we do not find texts transmitted from the senior Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum of that time denouncing lying. Likewise, we do not know of a text from Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha (d. 57 AH), for example, denouncing any lies that spread in society at that time, despite the fact that she used to redress many ahadith of prominent senior Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. This is in contrast to the mischief of al Mukhtar, as lies spread at that time and al Mukhtar himself was one of the most important tools of that lie. He used to lie and order others to lie,^[50] as he lied in his claim about the letter of Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah (d. 81 AH) to him.^[51]

He ordered those around him to lie in support of his opinion and idea. It is reported that he asked some of the Hadith scholars to fabricate a hadith about his own Caliphate in exchange for a significant reward.

The man said:

 

أما عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فلا ولكن اختر من شئت من الصحابة وأحُطُّك (يعني أنزل) من الثمن ما شئت

As from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, no. But choose anyone from the Companions you wish and I will decrease (i.e. bring down) the price how much ever you want.^[52]

 

He asked Ibn al Rab’ah al Khuza’i—who met the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam (i.e. he was a Sahabi)—to fabricate a hadith in support of him, saying to him:

 

إنك شيخ قد أدركت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فلا تُكذَّب بما تحدّث عنه فحدث بحديث عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهذه سبعُمئة دينار فخذها فقال له ابن الربعة الكذب على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم النارُ ليس دونها شيء لاوالله ما أنا بالفاعل

“You are a senior man and you have met the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Whatever you narrate will not be falsified, so narrate a hadith from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Here are seven hundred gold coins, take them.”

Ibn al Rab’ah replied to him, “Lying about the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is Hellfire, nothing else. No, by Allah, I will not do it.”^[53]

 

It is as if his lying and his eagerness to support lies were important transformations at that time.

Therefore, several scholars dated the beginning of the Isnad and examining it to the time of al Mukhtar. Amongst them is what Khaythamah ibn ‘Abdul Rahman (d. after 80 AH)^[54] narrated:

 

لم يكن الناس يسألون عن الإسناد حتى كان زمن المختار فاتهموا الناسَ

People were not asking about Isnad until the time of al Mukhtar. Then they suspected people.^[55]

 

Suspecting the people means distinguishing them and examining their conditions.

Similarly, here is the statement of Ibrahim al Nakha’i (d. 96 AH):

 

إنما سُئل عن الإسناد أيام المختار

People only asked about Isnad during the days of al Mukhtar.^[56]

 

Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) explains the reason for this by saying:

 

وسبب‏ هذا أنه كثر الكذب على عليّ في تلك الأيام

The reason for this was that he falsely attributed to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in abundance in those days.^[57]

 

Silah ibn Zufar al ‘Absi (d. 72 AH) said:

 

قاتل الله المختار أيَّ حديث أفسد وأي شيعة شان

May Allah destroy al Mukhtar! Which Hadith he corrupted and which group he disgraced.^[58]

 

Silah was among the trustworthy Tabi’in and a student of Ibn Mas’ud, ‘Ali, and Hudhayfah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.^[59]

In fact, the seniors of the Ahlul Bayt themselves accused al Mukhtar of lying. It is reported from ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, Zayn al ‘Abidin, (d. 94 AH) that he stood at the door of the Ka’bah and cursed al Mukhtar. A man said to him:

 

جعلني الله فداك تلعنه وإنما ذُبح فيكم فقال إنه كان كذابا يكذب على الله وعلى رسوله

“May Allah sacrifice me for you. You curse him whereas he was slaughtered because of you?”

He said, “He was a great liar. He would lie in the name of Allah and His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”^[60]

 

Hence, the texts of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu denouncing the widespread lies about ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu should be attributed to this strife, in my opinion. Amongst them is what Muslim narrated in the introduction to his al Sahih from Mujahid (d. 104 AH) who said:

 

جاء‏ بشير العدوي إلى ابن عباس فجعل يحدث ويقول قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فجعل ابن عباس لا يأذن لحديثه (أي لا يستمع) ولا ينظر إليه فقال يا ابن عباس ما لي لا أراك تسمع لحديثي أحدثك عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا تسمع فقال ابن عباس إنا كنا مرة إذا سمعنا رجلا يقول قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ابتدرته أبصارنا وأصغينا إليه بآذاننا فلما ركب الناس الصعب والذلول لم نأخذ من الناس إلا ما نعرف

Bashir al ‘Adawi came to Ibn ‘Abbas and began narrating Hadith, saying, “The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said; the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said.”

Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu neither paid attention to his speech (i.e. he did not listen) nor looked at him. Therefore, he said, “O Ibn ‘Abbas, what is the matter that I do not see you listening to my hadith? I narrate Hadith to you from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and you do not listen.”

Ibn ‘Abbas replied, “There was a time when we heard anyone saying ‘the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said’, our eyes would hasten towards him and our ears listened to him attentively. When people began narrating all types of narrations, we did not take from the people except what we knew.”^[61]

 

It is as if these texts are talking about that era, especially since it had a close relationship with supporting ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, which is what was mentioned in other narrations that Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu saw a book attributed to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and said:

 

والله ما قضى بهذا عليّ إلا أن يكون ضل

By Allah, ‘Ali did not pass these rulings unless he erred.^[62]

 

He destroyed a book containing rulings which were falsely attributed to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.^[63]

Lies about ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu spread during that era.^[64]

In my opinion, the statement of the great Tabi’i, Muhammad ibn Sirin (d. 110 AH):

 

لم يكونوا يسألون عن الإسناد فلما وقعت الفتنة قالوا سمّوا لنا رجالكم فيُنظر إلى أهل السنة فيؤخذ حديثهم ويُنظر إلى أهل البدع فلا يؤخذ حديثهم

They would not ask about Isnad. When the strife occurred, they said, “Name your narrators to us.” Then the Ahlus Sunnah were looked at and their Hadith were accepted and the innovators were checked and their Hadith were not taken.^[65]

 

should be applied to the mischief of al Mukhtar, even though most contemporary scholars^[66]—contrary to some of the predecessors^[67]—apply it to the strife among the early Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. However, I do not see any evidence for that, unlike the strife of al Mukhtar.^[68]

In any case, this strife of al Mukhtar had a positive impact on Hadith narration, as these statements related to it show that the demand for Isnad began from an early era, i.e. in the second half of the first century and that narrator criticism was clearly active in that era. Thus, there was a distinction and interest in who the transmitter is.

This means that the strife—even if it is negative in many aspects—had positive effects in terms of Hadith, its narration, and examination,^[69] especially concerning the beginnings of distinction and early consideration of Isnad. This was important for the development of narration and the development of its criticism, even if it was delayed and appeared after the era of the Companions. The chain of transmission to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is long and the narration is far from its original source. Therefore, a lot of forgery and distortion will definitely infiltrate it. It becomes much more difficult to scrutinise that and know what is right from wrong than if it were while the narration was close to its original source; and this is what happened.

 

NEXT⇒ The Critical Authority accompanying the Development of Narration

---

^[1]  Some of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum and Tabi’in believed that it was disliked to write Hadith. These include ‘Umar ibn al Khattab, Abu Musa al Ash’ari, Abu Sa’id al Khudri, and others. Abu Sa’id al Khudri was told:

لو كتبتم لنا فإنا لا نحفظ قال لا نُكتبكم ولا نجعلها مصاحف كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يحدثنا فنحفظ فاحفظوا عنا كما كنا نحفظ عن نبيكم

“If only you write for us as we cannot memorise.”

He said, “We will not write them down for you and we will not make them scriptures. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would narrate to us and we would memorise, so memorise from us as we would memorise from your Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”

 ‘Urwah ibn al Zubair states:

أن عمر بن الخطاب أراد أن يكتب السنن فاستشار في ذلك أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فأشاروا عليه أن يكتبها فطفق عمر يستخير الله فيها شهرا ثم أصبح يوما وقد عزم الله له فقال إني كنت أردت أن أكتب السنن وإني ذكرت قوما كانوا قبلكم كتبوا كتبا فأكبوا عليها وتركوا كتاب الله تعالى وإني والله لا ألبس كتاب الله بشيء أبدا

‘Umar ibn al Khattab wanted to write the Sunnah, so he consulted the Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam about this. They advised him to write it. Thereafter, ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu began making Istikharah (seeking guidance from Allah through prayer) regarding it for a month. Then one day when Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had determined it for him he said, “I wanted to write the Sunnah. Then I remembered a nation before you who wrote books, but they became devoted to them and abandoned the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. By Allah, I will never mix the Book of Allah with anything. (Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Taqyid al ‘Ilm, pg. 36-49.)

^[2]  Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Jami’ Bayan al ‘Ilm, 1/292.

^[3]  Sahih al Bukhari, book on fasting, chapter on the Prophet’s saying, “We do not write or calculate,” Hadith: 1913; Sahih Muslim, book on fasting, chapter on the obligation of fasting in Ramadan by sighting the crescent and stopping fasting by sighting the crescent, Hadith: 1080.

^[4]  Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Jami’ Bayan al ‘Ilm, 1/296.

^[5]  Nur al Din ‘Itr: Manhaj al Naqd, pg., 48 – 54.

^[6]  Al Suyuti: Tadrib al Rawi, 4/350; al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 3/80 – 81

^[7]  Sahih al Bukhari, book on knowledge, chapter on writing knowledge, Hadith: 113

^[8]  Sunan Abu Dawood, book on knowledge, chapter on writing knowledge, Hadith: 3646.

^[9]  Sahih al Bukhari, book on a found item, chapter on how to identify the lost and found item of the people of Makkah, Hadith: 2343; Sahih Muslim, book on Hajj, chapter on the sanctity of Makkah, its hunting, its empty land, its trees, and its lost and found items, Hadith: 1355.

^[10]  Sahih Muslim, book on asceticism and narrations that soften the hearts, chapter on verifying the Hadith and the ruling on writing knowledge, Hadith: 3004. His narration is Marfu’; however, the correct view is that it is Mawquf on Abu Sa’id, as al Bukhari stated.

^[11]  Refer to al Bukhari’s statement according to Ibn Hajar in Fath al Bari, 1/208 and Abu Dawood’s statement according to al Mizzi in Tuhfat al Ashraf, 3/408, who stated:

هو‏ منكر أخطأ فيه همام هو من قول أبي سعيد‏

This hadith is munkar (unacceptable). Humam made a mistake in it. It is Abu Sa’id’s statement.

However, Humam has testimonials to this hadith, as is the view of our teacher Sheikh Muhammad ‘Awwamah in his important comments on Tadrib al Rawi, ‎4/355-356, preferring the correctness of it being Marfu’.

^[12]  Mawquf Hadith is that hadith where the action or statement is attributed to a Sahabi radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

^[13]  Scholars mentioned several views to reconcile these ahadith. Some are:

The prohibition was specific to the time of the revelation of the Qur’an for fear of confusion with other things and the permission is for other times.

The prohibition is specific to writing something other than the Qur’an with the Qur’an in one thing, and the permission is to separate them.

The prohibition is specific to those who fear relying on writing without memorising it and permission is to those who are safe from this.

The prohibition was prior and the permission abrogated it when there was safety from confusion. Ibn Hajar said, “This is the most likely view, although there is no contradiction between the views.” (Fath al Bari, 1/208). This is because the previous sayings explain the reason for the prohibition. When the reason was removed, permission was given.

Many scholars have inclined to this opinion because the permission to write in his saying, “Write for Abu Shah,” came later, as it was on the Day of the Conquest (of Makkah). Similar was the permission for ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr in al ‘As, for he continued writing and passed away with the scroll. If the prohibition was later than the permission, he would have erased it. However, despite this, it still does not clear the objection because if it had been a general and established abrogation, the abstention from writing would not have remained among some of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum after the demise of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It can be said that writing was not forbidden in essence, but rather prohibition and permission was based on other reasons, and in this case that reason is: the fear of devoting oneself to studying other than the Qur’an and abandoning it, as was the case among the previous nations.

^[14]  Nur al Din ‘Itr: Manhaj al Naqd fi ‘Ulum al Hadith, pg. 48 onwards.

The validity of this interpretation, or the fact that it is Mawquf on Abu Sa’id, is supported by the aforementioned attempt of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu to write down ahadith and his consultation with the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum about it. If the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had forbidden the writing of his ahadith and ordered the erasure of what was written with a categorical command and prohibition, ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu would not have tried, from the onset, to write them or ask the Companions’ verdict regarding it, nor would they give a verdict about it.

When the Muhaddithin after them wrote their books that we see, such as the Muwatta’ of Malik, the Musnads of Abu Hanifah and al Shafi’i, and the Sahihs of al Bukhari and Muslim, can intelligence accept that the entire nation, even ‘Umar and the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, opposed the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and did not refrain from his prohibition? Moreover, the Muhaddithin went a step further and contradicted the consensus of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum and established what they erased? (Mustafa Sabri: Mawqif al ‘Aql, 4/61-62.)

Sheikh Mustafa Sabri asks those who relied on the hadith that prohibits writing and made it a basis in the chapter around which the matter revolves:

كيف وصل إليه حديث الأمر بمحو الأحاديث المكتوبة ولم يمح مع الأحاديث أليس هو أيضا حديثا أم يصل إليه ما يحلو له ولا يصل إلى الناس ما لا يحلو له

How did the hadith of the command to erase written ahadith reach him without being erased along with the ahadith? Is this not also a hadith? Or does what pleases him reach him and what does not please him not reach the people? (Mawqif al ‘Aql, 4/62.)

^[15]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Taqyid al ‘Ilm, pg. 60. See the opinions of Tawus, ‘Ubaidah, Shu’bah, and Abu Qilabah. Moreover, al Khatib reported that al Marwadhi said:

سمعت أحمد بن حنبل رحمه الله تعالى يقول لا أعلم لدفن الكتب معنى

I heard Ahmed ibn Hanbal rahimahu Llah saying, “I do not know the meaning of burying books.”

Al Khatib said on pg. 63:

لا معنى فيها إلا ما ذكرته

It has no meaning except what I mentioned.

^[16]  Al Bayhaqi: al Madkhal ila Kitab al Sunan al Kubra, chapter on those who disliked writing down knowledge and ordered it to be memorised, 2/835; al Sakhawi: Fath al Mughith, 3/40.

^[17]  Al Zarkashi: al Nukat ‘ala Muqaddamat Ibn al Salah, 3/565.

^[18]  There are important examples in the third chapter. Added to them is what I found in al Daraqutni’s al ‘Ilal, 12/212, where he gives preference among the students of Muhammad ibn al Munkadir. He mentions what he found in the book al Manasik of Ibn Jurayj (d. 150 AH) from Muhammad ibn al Munkadir, yet prefers the narration of others due to their large number, which confirms that what matters is the critical authority that follows the paths of narrations and not only the issue of writing.

^[19]  In that year, the Oral History Research Office was established at Columbia University in America. Refer to Daniel Berto: Imkanat Kabirah fi Muwajahat ‘Awa’iq Taqlidiyyah (Great potential in the Face of Traditional Obstacles), published with the book, al Tarikh al Shafawi Muqarabat fi al Mafahim wa al Manhaj wa al Khibarat (Oral History, Approaches to concepts, methods, and experiences), 1/111–113.

^[20]  Daniel Berto: Imkanat Kabirah fi Muwajahat ‘Awa’iq Taqlidiyyah, published with the book, al Tarikh al Shafawi Muqarabat fi al Mafahim wa al Manhaj wa al Khibarat, 1/111.

^[21]  Thomas Rix: al Tarikh al Shafawi wa al Qadiyyah al Filastiniyyah (Oral History and the Palestinian issue), an article in the book, Man Yasna’ al Tarikh al Tarikh al Shafawi li al Intifadah (Who makes history; Oral history of the Intifada), pg. 84, quoted from ‘Adnan Abu Shabikah: Manhaj Naqd al Wathiqah al Rasmiyyah al Mudawwanah wa Imkaniyyat al Tatbiq ‘ala al Riwayah fi al Tarikh al Shafawi (The method of criticising the official written document and the possibility of application to the narration in oral history), pg. 482,  articles within the proceedings of the Oral History Conference, Reality and Aspiration, from publications of the Islamic University of Gaza.

^[22]  Refer to the important book published by the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies in 2015 by a group of authors, edited by Wajih Kawtharani and Marilyn Nasr, with the title, al Tarikh al Shafawi Muqarabat fi al Mafahim wa al Manhaj wa al Khibarat.

^[23]  Daniel Berto: Imkanat Kabirah fi Muwajahat ‘Awa’iq Taqlidiyyah, published with the book, al Tarikh al Shafawi Muqarabat fi al Mafahim wa al Manhaj wa al Khibarat, 1/112.

^[24]  Linda Schops: Sittat ‘Uqud min al Tarikh al Shafawi Ta’ammulat wa Qadaya Thabitah (Six decades of Oral History, reflections and constant issues), printed in the book al Tarikh al Shafawi Muqarabat fi al Mafahim wa al Manhaj wa al Khibarat, 1/28.

^[25]  ‘Abdullah ‘Ali Ibrahim: al Mukhbirun Mu’arrikhun Mithli Mithluk (Informants are historians like me, like you) printed in the book al Tarikh al Shafawi Muqarabat fi al Mafahim wa al Manhaj wa al Khibarat, 1/60.

^[26]  Mustafa Sabri: Mawqif al ‘Aql, 4/64.

^[27]  This is the statement of Abu Bakr ibn ‘Aqqal al Saqilli, quoted by Sheikh Zahid al Kawthari in his comments on Shurut al A’immah al Khamsah, pg. 159-160. With regards to it, he stated, “This is an extremely solid statement.”

^[28] Al Khatib al Baghdadi, Taqyid al ‘Ilm, pg. 57, regarding his saying, “It has been proven that those of the first era who disliked writing was only so that the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is not compared to something else or one is not distracted from the Qur’an by something else.”

^[29]  Professor Dr. Bekir Kuzudişli has a valuable study in counting the number of women narrators from Taqrib al Tahdhib and revealing that the decrease in their number over the ages was natural, due to social factors as details will follow in due course. (Bekir Kuzudişli: Hadis Araştirmalarında Oryantalist Gelenek ve Motzki, pg. 27.)

^[30]  The idea of narration for the sake of need was mentioned by al Mu’allimi al Yamani in several places in his book al Anwar al Kashifah, pg. 46, 58, and 60, and he focused on it exceptionally. Then my honourable brother, Prof. Dr. Bekir Kuzudişli, expanded his research of it and the social relations between the narrators in his valuable study on the family chains of transmission in the Hadith narration. He wrote in the Turkish language, wherein he mentioned the issue of narration out of necessity. (Bekir Kuzudişli: Hadis Rivayetinde Aile isnadlari. pg. 203-206.)

Then he summarised some of that in his important article translated into Arabic under the title Mustalahat al Hadith wa al Nizam al Istishraqi (Hadith Terminology and the Orientalist System) printed with the book Nazariyyat al Numu al ‘Aksi li al Asanid ‘Ind al Mustahriqin, Dirasat Hadithiyyah Naqdiyyah (The Theory of the reverse growth of supports among the orientalists, critical Hadith studies), pg. 200-221.

^[31]  When ‘Amr ibn al ‘As asked the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

أي الناس أحب إليك قال صلى الله عليه وسلم  عائشة‏ فقلت من الرجال فقال أبوها

“Which person is most beloved to you?”

He salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Aisha.”

I asked, “From the men?

He said, “Her father.”

(Sahih al Bukhari, book on the virtues of the Companions, Hadith: 3662; Sahih Muslim, book of the virtues of the Companions, chapter on the virtues of Abu Bakr al Siddiq, Hadith: 2384.)

^[32]  Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 2/183.

^[33]  Ibn ‘Uyaynah narrates:

كان أعلم الناس بحديث عائشة ثلاثة القاسم بن محمد وعروة بن الزبير وعمرة بنت عبد الرحمن

The most knowledgeable people about the Hadith of Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha were three: Qasim ibn Muhammad, ‘Urwah ibn al Zubair, and ‘Amrah bint ‘Abdur Rahman. (Ibn Abi Hatim: Al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/45.)

^[34]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/369. Similar content is narrated from al Bara’ radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Qatadah narrates from Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he narrated a hadith about the prohibition of alcohol. A man asked Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

أنت سمعت من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال نعم أو حدثني من لا يكذب والله ما كنا نكذب ولا ندري ما الكذب

“Did you hear directly from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?”

He replied, “Yes, or someone who does not lie narrated it to me. By Allah, we would not lie and we did not know what a lie was.” (Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/372).

^[35]  Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu heard about forty ahadith from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, according to most of the views. Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in al Fath, 11/383:

وقد اعتنيت بجمعها فزاد على الأربعين ما بين صحيح وحسن خارجا عن الضعيف وزائدا أيضا على ما هو في حكم السماع كحكايته حضور شيء فعل بحضرة النبي ‎صلى الله عليه وسلم

I took care to compile all of them. They increased to over forty sahih and hassan narrations, excluding the weak ones and besides those ahadith that fall under the ruling of hearing, such as his narrating of events that occurred in the presence of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

^[36]  Sunan al Darimi, chapter on respecting scholars, Hadith: 425.

^[37]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/372.

^[38]  A mursal hadith is that narration where the last narrator (the Sahabi) is omitted, i.e. a Tabi’i narrates directly from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

^[39]  Abu Zur’ah al Dimashqi: al Tarikh, pg. 441; Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/371.

^[40]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/353. Contains various other reports from him.

^[41]  Al Khatib: al Kifayah fi ‘Ilm al Riwayah, pg. 392.

^[42]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 55/333.

^[43]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 55/333.

^[44]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 1/362.

^[45]  In addition to this, Ibn ‘Asakir said:

كانوا لا يسألون عن الإسناد

They would not ask about the chain of transmission. (Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 1/363.)

^[46]  Ibn Hibban: al Majruhin, 1/131; al Hakim: Ma’rifat ‘Ulum al Hadith, pg. 6. Ibn Abi Farwah is weak or overlooked according to most critics. (Al Dhahabi: Mizan al I’tidal, 1/199.)

^[47]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/20.

^[48]  See the association of the spread of fabrication with al Mukhtar al Thaqafi and its association to Ibn Sirin’s statement by Professor Dr. Ahmet Yücel in his book published in Turkish, Hadis Tarihi (Tarikh al Hadith), pg. 37. Also see details of the impact of this mischief on fabrication according to Dr. Bekir Kuzudişli in his book, Hadis Tarihi (Tarikh al Hadith), pg. 89- 92.

^[49]  Al Mukhtar’s political situations fluctuated a lot. After he had been among those who rebelled against Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhuma and was not satisfied with his rule, he went to Ibn al Zubair in Makkah. Ibn al Zubair appointed him as governor of Kufah. When he gained control of it, he announced his rebellion against Ibn al Zubair. He then called for vengeance for the blood of Hussain, so he gathered many Shia around him and prepared an army to fight ‘Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad (the killer of Hussain) and he killed him in the year 65 AH. ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair sent an army to him, led by his brother Mus’ab. He fought and killed al Mukhtar and his companions in the year 67 AH. (Al Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 3/538 – 544. See some important texts about him from al Bukhari in al Tarikh al Awsat, ‎1/173 -177.)

^[50]  His falsification came from more than one person, including the Sahabi ‘Adi ibn Hatim al Ta’i, as reported by al Bukhari in al Tarikh al Awsat, ‎1/175.

^[51]  Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 5/99; al Dhahabi: Siyar, 4/124

^[52]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Jami’ li Akhlaq al Rawi, 1/131.

^[53]  Al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 8/435 and al Awsat, 1/174. This incident is testament to what I mentioned above, that lying is not known from any of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. This is evident from al Mukhtar’s statement, “You are a senior man, and you have met the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Whatever you narrate will not be falsified.” This is about a man who met the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and we only know of this single narration from him. How about someone who accompanied him many times and was prominent for that? (Abu Nuaim: Ma’rifat al Sahabah, 6/3059; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 6/333.)

^[54]  Al Dhahabi states in Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 4/321 in his biography:

كان من العلماء العباد ما نجا من فتنة ابن الأشعث إلا هو وإبراهيم النخعي فيما قيل وحديثه في دواوين الإسلام وكان سخيا جوادا يركب الخيل ويغزو

He was one of the worshipping scholars. No one escaped the trial of Ibn al Ash’ath except him and Ibrahim al Nakha’i—in what was said. His ahadith are found in the collections of Islam. He was extremely generous, rode horses, and fought in battle.

It was reported regarding Khaythamah that he met thirteen Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum; none of them were without grey hair.

^[55]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Jami’ li Akhlaq al Rawi, 1/130.

^[56]  Ahmed: al ‘Ilal, 3/380 (5673).

^[57]  Ibn Rajab: Sharh al ‘Ilal, ‎1/355.

^[58]  Al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 4/321.

^[59]  Hudhayfah ibn al Yaman used to love his student, Silah ibn Zufar, and would say about him:

قلب صلة بن زفر من ذهب

Silah ibn Zufar’s heart is made of gold.

Ibn Abi Hatim explained this by saying:

يعني‏ إنه منور كالذهب

It means that it is as luminous as gold.

(Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 4/446, al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 13/233.)

^[60]  Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 5/213; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 41/393.

^[61]  Muqaddamah Sahih Muslim, chapter on the prohibition of narrating from weak people and caution in carrying it, ‎1/13; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 10/234.

^[62]  Muqaddamah Sahih Muslim, chapter concerning the weak, liars, and those whose Hadith should be avoided.

^[63]  Ibid. I did not find, among the companions of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, anyone who was accused of lying who passed away before the year 60 AH. Perhaps the most famous of those who was controversial among ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu companions were Harith al A’war (d. 65 AH), Habbah ibn Juwayn (d. 76 AH), and Mina’ ibn Abi Mina’ who passed away later. It is obvious, if he was a real person, as the only narrator about him is Humam ibn Nafi’, the father of ‘Abdur Razzaq ibn Humam al San’ani (d. 211 AH). ‘Abdur Razzaq heard from his father around the end of the year 150 AH. It is thus possible that Mina’ passed away later so that Nafi’ could have heard from him, as all of Nafi’s teachers died at the beginning of the second century. (Al Dhahabi: Tarikh al Islam, 4/246; Ibn Hajar: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 10/397, 11/67.)

^[64]  Al Mu’allimi al Yamani in al Anwar al Kashifah, pg. 276, estimates Bashir’s story with Ibn ‘Abbas to be around the year 60 AH, but he did not mention any evidence for that. I think that it is shortly after that.

^[65]  Muqaddamah Sahih Muslim, chapter on Isnad is part of din, 1/11.

^[66]  Akram Diya’ al ‘Umari: Buhuth fi Tarikh al Sunnah al Musharrafah, pg. 48 onwards.

^[67]  Hafiz Ibn Rajab, when explaining this text in Sharh ‘Ilal al Tirmidhi, 1/355, indicates that he deems it related to the mischief of al Mukhtar. After this text, he mentioned a number of texts related to the mischief of al Mukhtar without presenting anything pertaining to the strife among the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

^[68]  Professor Dr. Bekir Kuzudişli believes that Ibn Sirin’s statement is attributed to the strife among the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, but it refers to the beginnings of lying and that systematic lying began with the mischief of al Mukhtar. Therefore, there was a lot of talk about it. This is a valid opinion if there are examples that show the beginning of lying during the days of the strife among the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. (Bekir Kuzudişli, Hadis Tarihi (Tarikh al Hadith), pg. 89-92.)

^[69]  Hammam Sa’id: al Fikr al Manhaji, pg. 56-58.