BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

The Critical Society in the era of the Atba’ al Tabi’in

 

Shu’bah ibn al Hajjaj (83 AH – 160 AH) as an example and the emergence of the method’s features

In this discussion, I limit myself to criticism in the early second century, during the era of the Atba’ al Tabi’in. This era extends from about the year 110 AH to the year 160 AH, and it is an era full of many critical statements from senior critics such as Malik ibn Anas, Shu’bah ibn al Hajjaj, Sufyan al Thawri, Hammad ibn Salamah, Hammad ibn Zaid, and others. However, in this brief study, I cannot cover all of their critical statements and scrutinise them, so I discuss the senior critic among them. Perhaps he is the most important critical authority in the first half of the second century on narrators and narrations. He is Shu’bah ibn al Hajjaj Abu Bistam (d. 160 AH), the Sheikh of (narrator) criticism in the city of Basrah, and the Imam of narrator criticism in the second century. I introduce him and his centrality in criticism in the first half of the second century. Then I present the manifestations of the transformation of criticism at the hands of Shu’bah into systematic criticism. Thereafter, I illustrate some of the features of the critical approach, and finally conclude the study with the important effects of that criticism on the Hadith society.

 

1. Shu’bah ibn al Hajjaj and his centrality in the criticism of narrators and narrations in the first half of the second century

Shu’bah ibn al Hajjaj was the most important critic in the first half of the second century, so much so that Imam Ahmed described him by saying:

 

كان شعبة أمة وحده في هذا الشأن يعني في الرجال وبصره بالحديث وتثبته وتنقيه للرجال

Shu’bah was a nation on his own in this matter, i.e., concerning narrators, his insight into Hadith, his verification, and his screening of narrators.^[1]

 

Shu’bah was distinguished from other senior scholars—despite their abundance and being widespread—at that time, in two things:

First: The vastness and abundance of his views in criticism and the importance of his statements and his impact on the methods of critics after him. This appears in the words of Hafiz Ibn Rajab concerning him:

 

وهو أول من وسع الكلام في الجرح والتعديل واتصال الأسانيد وانقطاعها ونقب عن دقائق علم العلل وأئمة هذا الشأن بعده تبع له في هذا العلم

He was the first to expand discussions in al jarh and al ta’dil, the continuity and discontinuity of chains of transmission, and delve into the subtleties of the science of ‘Ilal (causes for criticism in Hadith). Imams in this field after him followed him in this science.^[2]

 

His saying that ‘he expanded the discussion’ means that he made it general and widespread. Discussions prior to that were out of need, as will be mentioned in due course. It seems as though the expansion began in Iraq due to the intense need for it there. Ibn Hibban’s statement is reported specifically regarding this, as he said:

 

وهو أول من فتش بالعراق عن أمر المحدثين وجانب الضعفاء والمتروكين حتى صار علما يقتدى به ثم تبعه عليه بعده أهل العراق

He was the first in Iraq to investigate about the Muhaddithin and refrain from the weak and abandoned narrators, to a degree that it developed into a science that was emulated. The people of Iraq followed him after that.^[3]

 

Second: His criticism of the narrations was an early criticism, at the beginning of the second century, as he sought knowledge at an early stage,^[4] and learnt from al Hassan al Basri (d. 110 AH)^[5] and Talhah ibn Musarrif al Kufi (d.110 or 112 AH).^[6] He would scrutinise the ahadith of Talhah and test his memory. He did the same with some of his former sheikhs, which shows a strong awareness of the importance of narrator criticism at that early stage.

I do not think that anyone from his class had as much influence as Shu’bah had, through the vastness and abundance of his statements, in addition to their precedence in time.

In any case, this stage is broader than just Shu’bah’s criticism. It requires a special, lengthy research, which this book cannot accommodate. It will merely be represented by Shu’bah.

 

2. Manifestations of the transformation from criticism based on necessity to systematic criticism and its reasons

This stage is characterised by the fact that criticism has made an important shift from being criticism based on need to being systematic, constant criticism, taught and passed on to subsequent generations.

Perhaps the most important aspect, in which the picture of this great transformation becomes clear, is the criticism gatherings and their comprehensiveness. This means that it has gone beyond being a need, to being a comprehensive criticism of narrators. Thus, the criticism emanated from the initiative of the critic, not from his need for criticism. Shu’bah was one of the most important people who initiated and called for systematic criticism. He is the one who said to one of his students:

 

تعال يا عمران نغتاب في الله ساعة نذكر مساوئ أصحاب الحديث

Come, O ‘Imran, let us backbite for a moment, for the sake of Allah, and mention the faults of the people of Hadith.^[7]

 

In the narration of Abu Zaid al Ansari, he said:

 

أتينا شعبة يوم مطر فقال ليس هذا يوم حديث اليوم يوم غيبة تعالوا حتى نغتاب الكذابين

We came to Shu’bah on a rainy day, and he said, “This is not a day of Hadith, today is a day of backbiting. Come, let us backbite the liars.”^[8]

 

This is something that was not known before, and no critic before Shu’bah is known to have expanded discussions on narrators to the point of holding scholarly gatherings on this matter. This is where Shu’bah is distinguished and his criticism is distinguished.

My estimate is that this was early in the second century, as indicated by the description of Shu’bah’s gatherings, which had a new characteristic in the history of narration and criticism, as students would flock to them and leave the other Hadith gatherings, even if they were held by senior sheikhs. Ibn ‘Ulayyah states:

 

كنا نرى عند حميد يعني الطويل وسليمان يعني التيمي وابن‏ عون الرجل والرجلين فنأتي شعبة فنرى الناس

We would see one or two people by Humaid—i.e. al Tawil (d. 143 AH)—Sulaiman—i.e. al Taymi (d. 143 AH)—and Ibn ‘Awn (d. 151 AH). Then we would come to Shu’bah and see a group of people there.^[9]

 

This means that these gatherings took place before the death of those great sheikhs, and these gatherings were only criticism gatherings. This was explained by the narrator from Ibn ‘Ulayyah saying:

 

كان‏ أصحاب الحديث يريدون حسن المعرفة بالرجال وبمعرفة الحديث وهكذا كان هذا المعنى بينا في شعبة إن شاء الله

The scholars of Hadith desired good knowledge of narrators and Hadith. Likewise, this meaning was clear in Shu’bah, Allah willing.^[10]

 

Perhaps the spread of criticism that was not based on need sometimes had an impact on the view of some Muhaddithin. Thus, they denounced Shu’bah for doing so and considered it a form of backbiting. The great Muhaddith Hushaym ibn Bashir said:

 

كنا ندع مجالسة شعبة لأنه كان يدخلنا في الغيبة

We would abstain from sitting with Shu’bah because he used to involve us in backbiting.^[11]

 

Yazid ibn Harun said:

 

لو رأيتم شعبة لم تكتبوا عنه كان عيابا

If you saw Shu’bah, you would not write from him. He was a faultfinder.^[12]

 

Then this accusation of backbiting the Muhaddithin diminished due to the great need in that era and after it.^[13]

Shu’bah criticised some of the narrators who died in the year 113 AH, as will be mentioned later, which means that his criticism was early in that era. Perhaps the criticism at that time was in gatherings, and it might be that the gatherings were subsequent to that criticism.

Perhaps the most important reasons for this transformation are:

First: The nature of the city of Basrah, as it was a Hadith city without being a city in which fiqhi practice was passed down from generation to generation. This was unlike the cities of Madinah and Kufah, in which the inherited work was strong, therefore, Hadith criticism and the criticism of narrators in them was less than in Basrah.^[14]

Hence, we do not find any criticism from Malik or Sufyan of marfu’ ahadith that are mawquf and that narrating them as marfu’ is an error, as we find in Shu’bah’s criticism. Rather, Malik himself used to reduce the chains of transmission for many reasons, as will be mentioned later. Hence, Shu’bah began to criticise some of the ahadith by saying that no one joins this narrator in them and he made tad’if of that narrator due to that, unlike Malik, for whom criticism was based on practice, even if the Hadith may be proven and there is no objection in it.

From this, criticism of narrators and narrations became more famous in Basrah than other cities. One of the first to speak about it was Muhammad ibn Sirin (d. 110 AH) and his students followed him. Perhaps the most important of them was Ayub al Sakhtiyani (d. 131 AH). Perhaps Shu’bah was influenced by him.^[15]

Second: Shu’bah’s critical nature: This nature was well established in him since he studied poetry, prior to studying Hadith. He was extremely precise in poetic words and he differentiated between the alphabets sin and shin in words, correcting and finding errors. An example of this is that Abu ‘Amr ibn al ‘Ala’, the great linguist, recited a line of poetry in front of him, but he made a mistake in one of the letters. Shu’bah denounced that and corrected the line. His student al Asma’i states:

 

وأصاب شعبة وأخطأ أبو عمرو بن العلاء وما رأيت أحدا أعلم بالشعر من شعبة

Shu’bah was correct, and Abu ‘Amr ibn al ‘Ala’ was wrong. I have not seen anyone more knowledgeable about poetry than Shu’bah.^[16]

 

Third: The occurring need for criticism, in addition to the spread of narrations in the various regions, people’s interest in acquiring and disseminating those narrations, and the increasing status of the Muhaddithin in society.

It is a natural need that suits the spread of narrations and chains of transmission. Frequent narrators among the Companions were less than twenty. The number of the Tabi’in who paid great attention to spreading Hadith was in the hundreds; and the Atba’ al Tabi’in was in the thousands, then it is natural for the possibility of error among them to increase, and for criticism and scrutiny to spread little by little.

 

3. Critical statements of Shu’bah and extracting the features of the critical approach

Shu’bah made many critical statements related to narrators and narrations. These important statements can be studied in depth and observed whether they indicate a method in criticising narrators and narrations or are merely scattered statements.

When the definition of a method is ‘a collection of special tools, methods, and techniques that are used to examine discovered knowledge and phenomena, in such a way that they can be used for Qiyas and inference’, then were Shu’bah’s statements indicative of an established method according to him?

Anyone who ponders into what has been transmitted to us from Shu’bah will find two types of statements:

1. General fundamental statements: These are statements that are not related to a specific narrator or to a specific hadith, but rather in these statements Shu’bah answered a general question with an answer that shows a clear methodology in criticism, such as his statement when he was asked:

 

من أين تعلم أن الشيخ يكذب؟

How do you know that the sheikh lies?

 

He replied:

 

إذا روى عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لا تأكلوا القرعة حتى تذبحوها علمت أنه يكذب

If he narrates from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that do not eat the pumpkin until you slaughter it, you know that he is lying.^[17]

 

This is a general statement that shows Shu’bah’s approach in identifying the narrator’s lie and that one of the signs of that is the narrator is reckless with the transmissions he narrates.

One of his fundamental statements when he was asked:

 

متى يترك حديث الرجل

When will a person’s Hadith be discarded?

 

He answered with four things:

 

إذا حدث عن المعروفين ما لا يعرفه المعروفون وإذا أكثر الغلط وإذا اتهم بالكذب وإذا روى حديثا غلطا مجتمعا عليه فلم يتهم نفسه فيتركه طرح حديثه وما كان غير ذلك فارووا عنه

When he narrates from well-known people what the well-known people do not know, when there are many mistakes, when he is accused of lying, and if he narrates a hadith with a unanimous mistake and does not accuse himself and leave it, his Hadith will be rejected. Anything other than that, narrate it from him.^[18]

 

This is a general foundational statement that illustrates the methodology followed by Shu’bah in judging narrators. Its details and examples will come in due course.

Similar are his statements about the importance of continuity of the chain of transmission, such as his saying:

 

كل‏ حديث ليس فيه أخبرنا وحدثنا فهو خل وبقل

Every Hadith that does not contain Akhbarana or Haddathana is (like) vinegar and vegetables [it has no value].^[19]

 

Likewise, his statement:

 

كل حديث ليس فيه حدثنا وأخبرنا فهو مثل الرجل بالفلاة معه البعير ليس له خطام

Every Hadith that does not contain Akhbarana or Haddathana is like a man in the desert who has a camel without a muzzle.^[20]

 

From amongst his concern regarding continuity in the chain of transmission is his strong condemnation of tadlis, as is well-known.^[21]

2. Detailed practical statements wherein Shu’bah judges a specific narrator or a specific narration and mentions the explanation and justification for the ruling in that statement. Example of that is his ruling of many narrators as thiqah because he tested their memory and found it strong. Likewise, his ruling of others that they are da’if or that they make mistakes or do not memorise the Hadith, due to evidences and reasons that he mentions, or that he judges the Hadith itself as da’if (weak) or munkar (denounced).

Accordingly, by following some of the sayings, we can understand and deduce his approach. There is a big difference between an explained statement and an unexplained saying. His saying that so-and-so is thiqah or so-and-so is da’if in Hadith, without showing us the reasons motivating that saying, is an unexplained statement. Contrary to his statement, that so-and-so is weak because he narrated such-and-such hadith that contradicts thiqah narrators and other people, because in this statement he refers to the method he relied on and the tool he used in issuing the ruling. If we collect analogies and similarities, we can understand his approach in judging narrators and narrations.

I have collected many of Shu’bah’s statements, but I did not scrutinise them, as this is not possible in such a brief book. I have dozens of Shu’bah’s critical statements. I can summarise some of the characteristics that I have extracted from his approach. They are as follows:

 

The first characteristic: It is an approach based on historical tools, not religious tools

I believe that Shu’bah was using historical tools for criticism, as a historian who wanted to verify the Hadith and the narration historically. Were they proven and authentic from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the Companions, or the Tabi’in, or is it unauthentic? Hence, in his statements, he established rules of the historical documentation approach, the basis of which was to verify the historical event and the Hadith narration. This was done by establishing the truthfulness of the narrator, his accuracy, and his conformance with reality (i.e., truthfulness), and not merely by the fact that the narrator was an upright, pious person, known for his asceticism and piety. Therefore, Shu’bah was not deceived by the man’s din, his righteousness, and piety, that his Hadith would be accepted without inspection and studying for its accuracy, truthfulness, and conformance with reality. In fact, Shu’bah would intentionally severely criticise those who were famous for their righteousness and piety, if they are among those who made mistakes in Hadith, and sometimes this would reach the point of exaggeration.

This is evident in his strong criticism of the righteous man Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash (d. 138 AH),^[22] who was one of those who ‘stayed up at night in prayer and spent the day by fasting,^[23] and was the Tawus al Qurra’ (peacock of the Qur’an reciters), known for his goodness for ages.^[24] However, righteousness and virtue do not mean accepting his narrations and trusting them. Therefore, Shu’bah strongly warned against his mistakes and his narrations. Perhaps this was because people were deceived by his righteousness and piety. The learned and thiqah sheikh of Basrah, Hammad ibn Zaid states:

 

كلمنا شعبة أنا وعباد بن عباد وجرير بن حازم- وهما من كبار أهل البصرة كذلك- في أبان بن أبي عياش فقلنا لو كففت عنه فكأنه لان وأجابنا قال فذهبت يوما أريد الجمعة فإذا شعبة ينادي من خلفي فقال ذاك الذي قلتم لا أراه يسعني

‘Abbad ibn ‘Abbad, and Jarir ibn Hazim—who were among the prominent people of Basrah—and I, spoke to Shu’bah about Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash. We said, “If only you could stop criticising him.” It seemed as though he softened, and he answered us.

One day, I went to perform the Friday Salah, and suddenly Shu’bah was calling from behind me. He said, “The aspect you spoke about, I do not think it is possible for me.”^[25]

 

He criticised him repeatedly and explained that with reasons related to his memory and accuracy, as details will come in due course.

This is also the case with his criticism of the righteous judge and jurist, al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah (d. 153 AH). He criticised him severely even though he was close to the political authority and a tutor for the children of Khalifah al Mansur.^[26]

Shu’bah accused him of lying and he deduced this from several proofs.^[27] He announced this in the gatherings and warned his students and peers against narrating from him. Ghundar states:

 

قال لي شعبة لا تقرب الحسن بن عمارة فإني إن رأيتك تقربه لم أحدثك

Shu’bah said to me, “Do not go close to al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah, for if I saw you close to him, I will not narrate to you.”^[28]

 

In fact, he would send his students to his peers to warn them against mentioning his name in the narration gatherings. Shu’bah sent Abu Dawood al Tayalisi to Jarir ibn Hazim, saying to him:

 

لا‏ ترو عن الحسن بن عمارة فإنه يكذب

Do not narrate from al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah, for he lies.^[29]

 

The historical tools become evident clearly in the means of judging narrators and narrations according to Shu’bah. Looking at the tools he used in issuing the ruling; were they religious tools, such as his saying that ‘we accept his Hadith because of his righteousness and piety’ or were they historical tools by which Shu’bah verified the narrator’s memorisation, accuracy, transmission, and conformity of the text he narrates to reality?

I collected Shu’bah’s explanatory statements on narrators and narrations and extracted from them some methods in judging them. I did not see any religious tool in any of them. These are the methods:

 

First Method: Testing the narrators

The testing of narrators evolved in the class of the Atba’ al Tabi’in. Some methods cropped up that were not common in the class of the Tabi’in and Companions, as mentioned previously. Perhaps the most important method that emerged was talqin of the narrator in order to test him. In this method, the critic intends to visit the narrator and mention some ahadith to him that were not his ahadith, as if they were his ahadith. If he accepts and acknowledges them, then this indicates to his weakness and that he does not memorise well. If he objects and denounces it, this indicates that he is a Hafiz, Dabit, who knows his Hadith well.^[30] Shu’bah would do that many times for testing the narrator’s memorisation. If he obeyed him in the change, he would know that he is not a Hafiz, and if he disagreed with him, he would know that he was a Dabit.^[31] Among those with whom Shu’bah used this method was Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash. He failed the test and Shu’bah knew that he was not a Hafiz. He brought him papers containing the ahadith of al Hassan al Basri and the ahadith of Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He mixed them up, making this one for that one and that one for this one. Shu’bah states:

 

فدفعتها‏ إليه فقرأها علي

Thereafter, I gave it to him and he read them to me.^[32]

 

This means that he did not realise the shuffling. He thought that the Hadith of Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu was al Hassan’s and vice versa. It was as though testing in this new way was not known, as it contains an attempt to make the narrator wrong and discard him, not just a test of memorisation. However, one of the Atba’ al Tabi’in, Hazmi ibn ‘Umarah, disliked this method and said:

 

بئس‏ ما صنع وهذا يحل

What a miserable thing he did. Is this permissible?^[33]

 

However, Shu’bah was careful with this method and did not use it except for testing. He saw some people trying to make talqin to his Sheikh Simak in a hadith he narrated from ‘Ikrimah. Some of the narrators tried to make talqin to him of the addition of Ibn ‘Abbas, so that the narration would be from ‘Ikrimah — from Ibn ‘Abbas. Shu’bah would say:

 

أما‏ أنا فلم أكن ألقنه

As for me, I do not make talqin to him.^[34]

 

In addition to this new method of testing the memorisation of narrators, Shu’bah also continued on the well-known method, which is to verify the Sheikh’s memory over the years. Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah says:

 

رأيت شعبة في صحراء عبد القيس فقلت أين تريد فقال الأسود بن قيس أستثبته أحاديث سمعتها منه

I saw Shu’bah in the desert of ‘Abdul Qais and I asked him, “Where are you going?”

He replied, “To al Aswad ibn Qais. I want to confirm ahadith that I heard from him.”^[35]

 

He had heard a hadith from another sheikh—Talhah ibn Musarrif. Whenever Talhah passed by him, he would ask him about it. He was asked:

 

لم يا أبا بسطام

Why, O Abu Bistam?

 

He replied:

 

أردت أن أنظر إلى حفظه فإن غير فيه شيئا تركته

I wanted to test his memory. If he changed anything in it, I would leave him.^[36]

 

Perhaps this hadith is the hadith narrated by al Tayalisi from Shu’bah who said:

 

سألت طلحة بن مصرف عن هذا الحديث أكثر من عشرين مرة ولو كان غيري قال ثلاثين مرة

I asked Talhah ibn Musarrif about this hadith more than twenty times, and if it were someone other than me, he would say thirty times.^[37]

 

Talhah ibn Musarrif passed away early. Perhaps he was one of the oldest sheikhs of Shu’bah, as he passed away in the year 110 AH or 112 AH.^[38] He was one of the prominent scholars of Kufah,^[39] which shows that Shu’bah was early in scrutiny, investigation, and criticism, and he did it on the senior scholars and righteous people.

Shu’bah sometimes posed questions to the sheikh to confirm from him. Abu Nuaim al Fadl ibn Dukayn narrates:

 

قال شعبة لليث بن أبي سليم كيف سألت عطاء وطاوسا ومجاهدا كلهم في مجلس قال سل عن هذا خف أبيك

Shu’bah said to Layth ibn Abi Sulaim, “How did you ask ‘Ata’, Tawus, and Mujahid, all of them in one meeting?”

He said, “Ask your father’s sandals about it.”^[40]

 

Layth ibn Abi Sulaim is the sheikh of Shu’bah, but here Shu’bah denounces the fact that these three agreed on a matter,^[41] especially since it is said that:

 

كان يسأل عطاء وطاوسا ومجاهدا عن الشيء فيختلفون فيه فيروي أنهم اتفقوا من غير تعمد لذلك

He used to ask ‘Ata’, Tawus, and Mujahid about something, and they would disagree about it. He would narrate that they agreed on it, without intending to do so.^[42]

 

In any case, all of these examples about testing etc., show that the testing tools were not religious tools, but rather historical tools, through which Shu’bah attempted to identify the narrators’ memorisation and accuracy of ahadith. Shu’bah was not unique in this method of testing. Some of the most eminent scholars of Basrah, such as Hammad ibn Salamah and Abu ‘Awanah,^[43] also participated in this.

 

Second Method: Comparing his narrations with others

This method is perhaps the most famous critical method that scholars have relied upon throughout the ages with narrators, which is to compare the narrator’s reports with his peers, to observe his isolated reports from them, and his disagreements and agreements. Shu’bah made an important fundamental statement in comparisons, which is that he was asked:

 

متى يترك حديث الرجل فأجاب بأربعة أمور منها إذا حدث عن المعروفين ما لا يعرفه المعروفون وإذا أكثر الغلط وإذا اتهم بالكذب وإذا روى حديثا غلطا مجتمعا عليه فلم يتهم نفسه فيتركه طرح حديثه وما كان غير ذلك فارووا عنه

“When will a person’s Hadith be rejected?”

He answered with four things, “When he narrates from well-known people what the well-known people do not know, when there are many mistakes, when he is accused of lying, and if he narrates a hadith with a unanimous mistake and does not suspect himself and leave it, his Hadith will be rejected. Anything other than that, narrate it from him.”^[44]

 

His statement that ‘If he narrates from well-known people what the well-known people do not know’, shows the importance of comparison with the sheikh who is known for Hadith, and that if the narrator narrates such ahadith from him that are not known to be from him, then this is evidence of his weakness in Hadith.

Shu’bah used this method in several ways:

1.The narrator contradicting well-known thiqah narrators

From amongst that is his statement denouncing those who narrate from Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash:

 

إنما كان قتادة يروي عن أنس مائتي حديث وأبان يروي عن أنس ألفي حديث

Qatadah only narrated two-hundred ahadith from Anas but Aban narrated two-thousand ahadith from Anas.^[45]

 

It is as if he was saying that Anas ibn Malik radiya Llahu ‘anhu is a well-known Companion and well-known people narrate from him. Qatadah is one of the most prominent ones among them, but Aban is isolated in narrating as many as two-thousand ahadith that Anas ibn Malik’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu senior students do not know. From where did he get all of these ahadith?

Shu’bah used this in some of the narrations of his sheikh, Simak ibn Harb. Simak narrated a hadith from Sa’id ibn Jubayr — from Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma — from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. However, Shu’bah scrutinised him about that, as he had heard that hadith from three other sheikhs with their chains of transmission from Ibn ‘Umar as a mawquf hadith, i.e. Ibn ‘Umar’s statement. Therefore, he used to say:

 

ورفعه سماك وأنا أهابه

Simak narrated it as marfu’ and I have my reservations about it.^[46]

 

This means scrutinising narrators’ contradiction to others, even in additions to the chains of transmission. This is also a historical tool, which can be used in all eras. In fact, it is perhaps the most important historical tool in comparing narrations up to our time.

2. Comparing two senior thiqah narrators regarding their sheikh and giving preference between them

Shu’bah’s criticism was not limited to the weak narrators and liars. In fact, he criticised the ahadith of thiqah narrators and gave preference among them regarding some of the sheikhs. This shows careful tracking of every narration, even if it was from a very trustworthy person. Some of his statements show that he used to compare narrators from a single sheikh and give preference among them in memorising from that particular sheikh. He preferred ‘Asim al Ahwal (d. 142 AH)^[47] to Qatadah ibn Di’amah in their narrations from their sheikh, Abu ‘Uthman al Nahdi.^[48] ‘Asim and Qatadah were among the sheikhs of Shu’bah and both of them were senior thiqah narrators but it was as if ‘Asim was stronger and more accurate in his narrations from Abu ‘Uthman and Qatadah was more accurate in his narrations from Anas ibn Malik radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

One of his comparisons is his saying:

 

حديث يحيى بن أبي كثير أحسن من حديث الزهري

The Hadith of Yahya ibn Abi Kathir is better than the Hadith of al Zuhri.^[49]

 

Yahya and al Zuhri were among the senior Imams of their time.^[50]

 

Third Method: Reverting to the sheikh from whom the narration was transmitted and verifying the narration of his students.

Using this method, Shu’bah criticised the narrations of some of his contemporaries who narrate from his sheikhs. He severely criticised al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah because he narrated what was not known from al Hakam ibn ‘Utaybah. Shu’bah reverted to his sheikh al Hakam and asked him about what was narrated from him. Shu’bah states:

 

روى‏ الحسن بن عمارة عن الحكم عن يحيى بن الجزار عن علي سبعة أحاديث فلقيت الحكم فسألته عنها فقال ما حدثته بشيء منها

Al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah narrated seven ahadith from al Hakam — from Yahya ibn al Jazzar — from ‘Ali. I met al Hakam and asked him about them. He said, “I did not narrate any of them to him.”^[51]

 

Which means Shu’bah accused al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah of lying.

Shu’bah had another situation with al Hassan that showed his accusation of lying. Shu’bah sent his student, Abu Dawood al Tayalisi, to Jarir ibn Hazim, warning him against narrating from al Hassan and saying:

 

لا‏ يحل لك أن تروي عن الحسن بن عمارة فإنه يكذب

It is not permissible for you to narrate from al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah as he lies.

 

His student asked him:

 

وما علامة ذلك قال روى عن الحكم أشياء فلم نجد لها أصلا

What is the sign of that?

He explained, “He narrated things from al Hakam for which we did not find any basis.”^[52]

 

Shu’bah then mentioned two examples wherein he illustrated that he reverted to al Hakam concerning what al Hassan Ibn ‘Umarah narrated from him. Al Hakam denied both narrations.^[53] He showed that al Hassan narrated what was not known about the Sheikh, and with these two ahadith, Shu’bah deduced that al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah was attributing lies to al Hakam.

It seems as though there were more ahadith than that. Al Bukhari narrated in his Tarikh from al Nadr Ibn Shumayl — from Shu’bah who narrates:

 

أفادني الحسن بن عمارة سبعين حديثا عن الحكم فلم يكن لها أصل

Al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah informed me of seventy ahadith from al Hakam which had no basis.^[54]

 

Using this same method, he would test the memory of the senior scholars amongst his contemporaries. Shu’bah said:

 

ما حدثني سفيان عن إنسان بحديث فسألته عنه إلا كان كما حدثني به

Sufyan never narrated a hadith to me from any person and I asked him about it except that it was as he narrated it to me.^[55]

 

It appears that he would use this testing a lot. He narrates:

 

ما حدثني أحد عن شيخ إلا وإذا سألته يعني ذلك الشيخ يأتي بخلاف ما حدث عنه ما خلا سفيان الثوري فإنه لم يحدثني عن شيخ إلا وإذا سألته وجدته على ما قال سفيان

No one narrated any hadith to me from a sheikh, except that when I asked him—i.e. that sheikh—he would narrate contrary to what was narrated from him, besides Sufyan al Thawri. He did not narrate to me from any sheikh except that when I asked the sheikh, I found it to be according to what Sufyan said.^[56]

 

We notice here that Shu’bah scrutinised the greatest scholar in Kufah, who was Sufyan al Thawri, and reverted to his sheikhs to confirm his memorisation. Thus, his knowledge, righteousness, and fame for his virtue were on one side, and his accuracy in Hadith, narration, chain of transmission, and text was on another side. This shows that the tool is not a religious tool. Some prominent scholars also used this method in that early era, the likes of Hammad ibn Salamah.^[57]

 

Fourth Method: Observing the narrator’s isolated narrations

In this method, Shu’bah scrutinises the texts transmitted by the narrator. If he finds anything in his text that he dislikes, he reverts to the sheikh and declares all his ahadith as da’if.

It is interesting that, at times, Shu’bah made tad’if of the sheikh because of only one reprehensible hadith. Hence, he discarded Hakim ibn Jubayr—who is one of the less frequent narrators—due to one hadith, which is the hadith on charity. Ibn al Madini asked his sheikh, Yahya al Qattan:

 

من تركه قال شعبة من أجل حديث الصدقة

“Who discarded him?”

He said, “Shu’bah, because of the hadith on charity.”^[58]

 

It is the hadith narrated by al Tirmidhi from Hakim ibn Jubayr — from Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Yazid — from his father — from ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, who said:

 

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من سأل الناس وله ما يغنيه جاء يوم القيامة ومسألته في وجهه خموش أو خدوش أو كدوح قيل يا رسول الله وما يغنيه قال خمسون درهما أو قيمتها من الذهب

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Whoever asks people despite having sufficient wealth, he will come on the Day of Qiyamah and what he asked for will take the form of scratches or scars or toil on his face.”

Someone asked, “O Prophet of Allah, and what is sufficient for him?”

He replied, “Fifty dirhams, or its value in gold.”

 

Al Tirmidhi said:

 

حديث ابن مسعود حديث حسن وقد تكلم شعبة في حكيم بن جبير من أجل هذا الحديث

The hadith of Ibn Mas’ud is a hassan hadith. Shu’bah criticised Hakim ibn Jubayr because of this hadith.^[59]

 

Hakim ibn Jubayr is debatable. ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi said:

 

وإنما روى احاديث يسيرة وفيها أحاديث منكرات

He narrated very few ahadith and they contained munkar ahadith.^[60]

 

It is as if Shu’bah felt that Hakim ibn Jubayr cannot be isolated in this chain of transmission and text from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam for it contains a ruling; and something like that must be widespread.

Likewise, he criticised ‘Abdul Malik ibn Abi Sulaiman for narrating a hadith about Shuf’ah (pre-emption) that was isolated to him and no one else narrated it. It was as though he disliked the fact that such an important hadith was in the quiver of one man.^[61] He was asked:

 

لم تركت الرواية عن عبد الملك بن أبي سليمان وهو حسن الحديث قال من حسن حديثه أفر روى عن عطاء عن جابر عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في الشفعة للغائب

“Why did you abandon narrating from ‘Abdul Malik ibn Abi Sulaiman whereas his Hadith is hassan?”

He said, “I run away from his hassan narrations. He narrated from ‘Ata’ — from Jabir — from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding shuf’ah for an absent person.”^[62]

 

Here hassan hadith is in the meaning of gharib (strange) and isolated.^[63] Shu’bah left the Hadith of ‘Abdul Malik because of this hadith. He is reported to have said:

 

لو روى عبد الملك بن أبي سليمان حديثا آخر مثل حديث الشفعة طرحت حديثه

If ‘Abdul Malik ibn Abi Sulaiman narrated another hadith like the hadith of shuf’ah, I will discard his Hadith.^[64]

 

However, critics disagreed with Shu’bah and trusted ‘Abdul Malik. Sufyan al Thawri said about him:

 

من‏ الحفاظ وكان ميزانا

He was from the Huffaz and he was a scale.^[65]

 

Ibn Rajab said:

 

وإنما ترك شعبة حديثه لرواية حديث الشفعة لأن شعبة من مذهبه أن من روى حديثا غلطا مجتمعا عليه ولم يتهم نفسه فيتركه ترك حديثه

Shu’bah discarded his Hadith due to the hadith of shuf’ah, because Shu’bah is of the view that whoever narrates a Hadith with a unanimous mistake and does not blame himself and leave it, his Hadith should be discarded.^[66]

 

If Shu’bah was critical of some narrators because of one hadith, then it is more likely that he would criticise them for several ahadith in which they made mistakes. An example of this is that he heard some ahadith from the jurist Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Layla and found them to be maqlub (inverted). Therefore, he said:

 

ما رأيت أحدا أسوا حفظا من ابن أبي ليلى

I have not seen anyone with a worse memory than Ibn Abi Layla.^[67]

 

A similar example is his previous statement about al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah that he narrated seventy ahadith from al Hakam, but they had no basis.^[68]

The criticism in all of this is based on historical observation, which is the strangeness of the isolated narration of one narrator with a chain of transmission and a text that should have been well-known; but no one else narrated it, even though it is concerning an important ruling.

 

Fifth Method: Investigating the narrator’s book

This is the method whereby the critic looks at the narrator’s books and verifies his accuracy and memory. The narrator may be rejected through it or he may be authenticated. The texts reported from Shu’bah are from two viewpoints:

One viewpoint is where Shu’bah looked into the narrator’s book and then declared him da’if, like his looking at the book of ‘Umarah ibn Juwayn Abu Harun al ‘Abdi, when he had hoped to meet him. Shu’bah states:

 

فلما قدم أتيته فرأيت عنده كتابا فيه أشياء منكرة في علي رضي الله عنه فقلت ما هذا قال هذا الكتاب حق

When he came, I came to him and saw he had a book containing reprehensible things about ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, so I asked, “What is this?”

He said, “This book is true.”^[69]

 

The second viewpoint is where Shu’bah looked into the narrator’s book and authenticated him, but criticised his memorisation. An example of that is Shu’bah’s statement to Abu ‘Awanah:

 

كتابك صالح وحفظك لا يسوى شيئا مع من طلبت الحديث قال مع منذر الصيرفي قال منذر صنع بك هذا

“Your book is good but your memory is of no value. With whom did you acquire Hadith?”

He said, “With Mundhir al Sayrafi.”

He said, “Mundhir did this to you.”^[70]

 

Mundhir, as stated by al Falas, was a liar.^[71]

In the two statements, it appears that Shu’bah is a historian critic. In the first, he was waiting to meet the man because of his reputation for righteousness and piety, but when he looked in his book and saw reprehensible narrations in it, he declared that and asked the sheikh about them. The sheikh insisted, but he failed. In the second, Shu’bah differentiated between the memory of the narrator and his book. His memory was weak and his book was strong. He looked at the sheikh’s narrations and their conformity with Hadith reality. Shu’bah tried to find out the reason for the weakness in his narrations. He attributed that to the one with whom he used to acquire Hadith and study with.

 

Sixth Method: Observe the narrator’s ability to lie

In this method, Shu’bah observes the narrator’s actions and his style of narrating and senses that this narrator can take risks and lie easily, or he may not be cautious when narrating and therefore, make many mistakes due to his negligence. An example of this is that he judged ‘Asim ibn ‘Ubayd Allah al ‘Umari to be negligent, with many mistakes, in the following statement:

 

كان عاصم لو قلت له من بنى مسجد البصرة لقال حدثني فلان عن فلان أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بناه

‘Asim was such that if you asked him, “Who built the Basrah Masjid?” he would say, “So-and-so narrated to me from so-and-so that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam built it.”

 

Likewise, he said:

 

كان عاصم لو قلت له رأيت رجلا راكبا حمارا لقال حدثني أبي

‘Asim was such that if you tell him that I saw a man riding a donkey, he would say, “My father narrated that to me.”^[72]

 

This means that he narrates everything and does not take precaution in narrating or scrutinise, and that he was extremely negligent, narrating everything he heard and attributing it to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or to his father.

Similar was the situation with ‘Umarah ibn Juwayn Abu Harun al ‘Abdi. Shu’bah states about him:

 

لو شئت لحدثني أبو هارون العبدي عن أبي سعيد الخدري بكل شيء لفعل

If I wanted Abu Harun al ‘Abdi to narrate everything from Abu Sa’id al Khudri to me, he would have done so.^[73]

 

It is as if these people were negligent; they did not lie. However, concerning Yazid ibn Sufyan Abu al Muhazzam, Shu’bah said:

 

إنه لو أعطي فلسين لحدثهم سبعين حديثا

If he had been given two pennies, he would have narrated seventy ahadith.^[74]

 

All of this confirms his foundational statement in criticism when he was asked, “How do you know when a sheikh lies?”

He said:

 

إذا روى عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لا تأكلوا القرعة حتى تذبحوها علمت أنه يكذب

If he narrates from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that do not eat pumpkin until you slaughter it, I know that he was lying.^[75]

 

That is, he knows that the narrator is narrating strange, reprehensible texts, and he is bold in doing so.

It should be noted that this ability might be among the righteous people and at times among others. The matter is based on historical authentication of the narrator and the narration. If the narrator is inclined to risk lying or is negligent, who narrates what he can, then his Hadith and narrations are not reliable.

 

Seventh Method: Criticism by presenting on dates

It is an important method used in the method of evaluating narrators. An example of this is that Shu’bah heard some narrators transmitting from Abu ‘Ubaydah ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud that he heard his father. Shu’bah said:

 

أوه كان أبو عبيدة ابن سبع سنين

Oh, Abu ‘Ubaydah was seven years old.

 

Then he started hitting his forehead.^[76]

Shu’bah believed that it was not possible for Abu ‘Ubaydah, at that age, to acquire knowledge from Ibn Mas’ud. Thus, his narration from him was a mursal narration, and his statement ‘he heard his father’ could not be authentic,^[77] which creates objections on the narrator who transmitted this report.

Among the presentations on dates is Shu’bah’s question to some of the narrators about the date of their birth, whereby verifying that he heard it from the sheikh. Shu’bah said:

 

سألت أبا اليقظان عن حديث فحدثني به ثم سألته بعد عن مولده فأخبرني فإذا هو قد سمع الحديث وهو ابن أقل من سنتين

I asked Abu al Yaqzan about a hadith and he narrated it to me. Thereafter I asked him about his date of birth and he told me. Accordingly, he heard the hadith when he was less than two years old.^[78]

 

This method can also be used to test narrators by presenting them to dates.

 

Eighth Method: Observing the narrator’s additions to the Isnad

Some narrators would add some names to some ahadith. Some of them narrated a mawquf hadith as a marfu’ hadith and a mursal hadith as a mawsul hadith. Shu’bah would observe this; and it is an important early observation. Therefore, he described two narrators from among his sheikhs as those who would narrate hadith as marfu’, and he had a special word for that. He used to say, “He was a Raffa’”. He described ‘Ali ibn Zaid ibn Jud’an and Yazid ibn Abi Ziyad as such.^[79]

These are some of the ways and means, through which Shu’bah judged narrators and narrations. All of them, in my opinion, are methods used to criticise history in general, regardless of religious issues.

However, some scattered incidents from Shu’bah show that he did not accept some of the narrators for issues related to piety. It was said to Shu’bah:

 

لم تركت حديث فلان

Why did you leave the Hadith of so-and-so?

 

He said:

 

رأيته يركض على برذون فتركت حديثه

I saw him racing on a horse, so I left out his Hadith.^[80]

 

This is not related to memory or accuracy. Likewise is his statement about al Minhal ibn ‘Amr:

 

أتيت‏ منزل المنهال بن عمرو فسمعت فيه صوت الطنبور فرجعت

I came to the house of al Minhal ibn ‘Amr and I heard the sound of the tambourine, so I returned.^[81]

 

The tambourine is one of the musical instruments, so turning away from him was religious. Likewise, Shu’bah said:

 

أتيت أبا الزبير وفخذه مكشوفة فقلت له غط فخذك قال ما بأس بذلك فلذلك لم أرو عنه

I came to Abu al Zubair and his thigh was uncovered. I said to him, “Cover your thigh.”

He said, “There is nothing wrong with that.”

Therefore, I did not narrate from him.”^[82]

 

All of these and others similar to it are religious reasons that are not related to the narrator’s memory, accuracy, and conformance of his Hadith to reality.

What I see is that the important difference in Hadith criticism is between two issues:

First: Tad’if of a narrator and criticising him for these reasons.

Second: Abandoning narrating from him for actual reasons.

Tad’if of the narrator and criticising him for similar reasons means that the source of the final ruling is religious. This is not found in what is transmitted from Shu’bah. What is transmitted from him is that he abstained from narrating from him, not that he issued a ruling that he was da’if. A narrator or critic can abstain from narrating from a sheikh for many reasons: psychological, social, religious, etc., but for him to issue a ruling on his narrations to be da’if because he did not cover his thigh, this is something that is not known from any texts of Shu’bah or any other Imam.

Indicative to this is the fact that Shu’bah clearly stated regarding some narrators that he abandoned narrating from them for religious reasons; however, he then narrated from another person who narrated from them. He narrates:

 

لقيت ناجية الذي روى عنه أبو إسحاق فرأيته يلعب بالشطرنج فتركته فلم أكتب عنه ثم كتبت عن رجل عنه

I met Najiyah, from whom Abu Ishaq narrated. I saw him playing chess, so I left him and did not write from him. Then I wrote from a man who wrote from him.^[83]

 

If it had been a general criticism, he would not have narrated through another person from him. Thus, the matter reverts to the fact that abandoning the report of a narrator is different from his criticism and tad’if. I saw al Amir al San’ani alerting to that in his statement:

 

واعلم‏ أنه لا تصريح من المفسرين المذكورين بأنهم جرحوا من ذكر إذ شعبة لم يجرح من رآه يركض على برذون بل قال تركت حديثه ولم يجرحه وكأنه رأى ذلك من خوارم المروءة وأنه يفسرها بسيرة أمثاله وأن مثل ذلك الرجل لا يركض على برذون وكذلك من سمع في بيته صوت الطنبور لم يجرحه بل قال كره السماع منه وكذلك من رآه كثير الكلام ولا شك أن هذا تعمّق ومبالغة

Know well that there is no clear statement from the aforementioned commentators that they criticised those who are mentioned, because Shu’bah did not criticise the one he saw racing on a horse, but he said that I left his Hadith. He did not criticise him. It is as if he regarded that to be contrary to chivalry and that he explained that through the behaviour of similar people, that people like that would not race on horses. Similarly, concerning the one in whose house he heard the sound of the tambourine, he did not criticise him, but rather said that he disliked hearing from him, and likewise, the one he saw talking excessively. There is no doubt that this is in-depth and exaggeration.^[84]

 

It is also possible to discuss each of Shu’bah’s statements regarding these narrators separately, as Shu’bah narrated from al Minhal ibn ‘Amr,^[85] and the previous statement from him does not indicate that he did not narrate from him at all. Likewise, Shu’bah narrated from Abu al Zubair. Suwaid ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz disliked that, saying:

 

ثم ذهب فكتب عنه

Then he went and wrote from him.^[86]

 

Shu’bah’s narration from Abu al Zubair is proven.^[87]

In any case, Shu’bah was criticised for such strictness. Some of his contemporaries criticised him. Wahb ibn Jarir said to him when he heard him say that I came to the house of al Minhal ibn ‘Amr, and I heard the sound of the tambourine, so I returned:

 

فهلا سألت عسى أن لا يعلم هو

Why didn’t you ask him? Perhaps he does not know.^[88]

 

This is a correct statement. Perhaps he had no option regarding that voice. Similarly, critics after him such as al Khatib al Baghdadi criticised him, as he did not regard these examples to be something a narrator could be criticised for.^[89] Likewise, Ibn al Qattan al Fasi, Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani, and others criticised him.^[90]

Then, after all of this, if it is established that Shu’bah criticised some narrators for religious issues, then generalising that to Shu’bah’s entire approach is a wrong generalisation, as it has become clear that Shu’bah’s criticism in the past was a criticism based on the method of historical documentation in dozens of narrators and ahadith. Thus, generalising the stance in a partial incident to his overall approach is a methodological problem.

 

The second characteristic: It is natural criticism that accompanies the development of narrations and its initial problems

By naturalism in criticism, I mean that the tools used in it were appropriate to the requirements of the era. This is clear from Shu’bah’s critical statements that passed, pertaining to rulings on narrators, which were related to verification, memorisation, and accuracy more than writing. If it was related to writing, then it was related to the critic’s observation of the book only. It was not related—as we will see later in the third century—to the change in handwriting, scratching it, additions and subtractions, as the era of Shu’bah was the era of the beginnings of Tasnif and written publishing, not the era of stability. Thus, it is natural that not much criticism related to writing is noticed in his sayings.

However, Shu’bah intensely investigated the important phenomena that emerged in his time, which was the phenomenon of tadlis. Therefore, he spoke at length in criticising it and warning against it. Then he followed the narrators in it in a well-known and precise manner, which means that the criticism was accompanied by the problems that the narrators created.

Tadlis in the chain of transmission is when the narrator intentionally hides the name of his sheikh from the isnad and narrates from someone above him using the word ‘‘an’ (from) so that the chain of transmission appears short and high, or to conceal some of the da’if names in it. It was a phenomenon that was more widespread in Iraq than in the Arabian Peninsula. Hence, we find many statements from Shu’bah about it, not from Malik.

Shu’bah was very active in tracking down tadlis. He kept up with it, denounced it, and paid all the attention needed by criticising and tracking it. He tracked his senior sheikhs before scrutinising his peers and others. He would pay attention to the wording of the person he heard the Hadith from; did the sheikh hear from someone above him directly, did he narrate it as mursal, or did he practice tadlis. He scrutinised with several sheikhs, whether they were mudallis or not, to ensure the authenticity of the sima’. Perhaps the oldest of them are:

1. Muawiyah ibn Qurrah (d. 113 AH): An example of this is that Shu’bah narrates:

 

قلت لمعاوية ابن قرة وذكر حديثا فقلت له من حدثك قال حدثنيه فلان استرحت من رهقك يا شعبة

I said to Muawiyah ibn Qurrah—after he mentioned a hadith, “Who narrated it to you?”

He said, “So-and-so narrated it to me. I need rest from your exhaustion, O Shu’bah.”^[91]

 

The matter was exhausting for the Tabi’in and they tried to avoid Shu’bah and his scrutiny as much as they could.

 

2. Qatadah ibn Di’amah (d. 117 AH): Shu’bah scrutinised him a lot, because he was one of those who practiced tadlis. Shu’bah states:

 

كنت أتفطن إلى فم قتادة إذا حدث فإذا حدث ما قد سمع قال حدثنا سعيد بن المسيب وحدثنا أنس وحدثنا الحسن وحدثنا مطرف فإذا حدث بما لم يسمع قال حدث سليمان بن يسار وحدث أبو قلابة

I would pay attention to Qatadah’s mouth when he narrated. When he narrated what he heard, he would say, “Haddathana (narrated to us) Sa’id ibn al Musayyab, haddathana Anas, haddathana al Hassan, and haddathana Mutarrif.” If he narrated what he did not hear, he would say, “Haddatha (narrated) Sulaiman ibn Yasar and haddatha Abu Qilabah.”^[92]

 

In one narration, Shu’bah said:

 

كنا نعرف الذي لم يسمع قتادة مما سمع إذا قال قال فلان وقال فلان عرفنا أنه لم يسمعه

We knew those from whom Qatadah did not hear and those from whom he heard. If he said, “Qala fulan (so-and-so said) and so-and-so said,” we knew that he did not hear from him.^[93]

 

3. The great jurist Hammad ibn Abi Sulaiman (d. 120 AH): He is one of the prominent sheikhs of Shu’bah. Despite this, Shu’bah would scrutinise his hearing. Al Shafi’i states:

 

حدث‏ شعبة عن حماد عن إبراهيم بحديث قال شعبة فقلت لحماد سمعته من إبراهيم قال لا ولكن أخبرني مغيرة قال فذهبت إلى مغيرة فقلت إن حمادا أخبرني عنك بكذا فقال صدق فقلت سمعته من إيراهيم قال لا ولكن حدثني منصور قال فلقيت منصورا فقلت حدثني عنك مغيرة بكذا فقال صدق فقلت سمعته من إبراهيم قال لا ولكن حدثني الحكم قال شعبة فجهدت أن أعرف طرقه فلم أعرفه ولم يمكني

Shu’bah narrated a hadith from Hammad — from Ibrahim. Shu’bah states: I asked Hammad, “Did you hear it from Ibrahim?”

He replied, “No, but Mughirah informed me.”

So I went to Mughirah and said, “Hammad informed me such-and-such from you.”

He said, “He spoke the truth?”

I asked, “Did you hear it from Ibrahim?”

He said, “No, but Mansur narrated it to me.”

Shu’bah says, “I met Mansur and said, ‘Mughirah narrated such and such from you.’

He said, ‘He spoke the truth?’

So I asked, ‘Did you hear it from Ibrahim?’

He said, ‘No, but al Hakam narrated it to me.’”

Shu’bah states, “I tried to find out the chain, but I did not find it and it was not possible for me.”^[94]

 

4. Abu Ishaq al Sabi’i (d. 127 AH): He was also one of the prominent sheikhs of Shu’bah and one of those who was famous for tadlis, but Shu’bah would scrutinise his narrations intensely. In fact, sometimes he would even clarify what Abu Ishaq heard from his sheikhs from what he did not hear. Someone said to Abu Ishaq:

 

إن شعبة يقول إنك لم تسمع من علقمة شيئا قال صدق

“Shu’bah claims that you did not hear anything from ‘Alqamah.”

He said, “He spoke the truth.”^[95]

 

It seems as though it was famous that he had heard; however, Shu’bah was scrutinising until he knew that he did not hear. Therefore, he declared that and Abu Ishaq agreed with him. He would scrutinise the number of times he heard from his sheikhs and inform his children and their children, who were thiqah narrators from him. ‘Isa ibn Yunus—the grandson of Abu Ishaq—narrates:

 

قال لي شعبة ما سمع جدك من الحارث إلا أربعة أحاديث قلت ما أعلمك قال هو قال لي

Shu’bah said to me, “Your grandfather only heard four ahadith from al Harith.”

I asked, “How do you know?”

He said, “He told me that.”^[96]

 

The grandson, who is one of the most thiqah narrators regarding Abu Ishaq, does not know the number heard directly and Shu’bah comes to scrutinise and inform him about it. In another text, Shu’bah says:

 

لم يسمع أبو إسحاق من أبي وائل إلا حديثين

Abu Ishaq heard only two ahadith from Abu Wa’il.^[97]

 

5. Humaid al Tawil (d. 143 AH): He is one of the thiqah and most prominent narrators from Anas ibn Malik radiya Llahu ‘anhu. However, Shu’bah would anger him with his excessive scrutiny. Hammad ibn Salamah said:

 

جاء شعبة إلى حميد فسأله عن حديث فحدثه به قال أسمعته قال أحسبه قال فقال بيده هكذا أي لا أريده فلما قام فذهب قال حميد قد سمعته من أنس ولكن تشدد علي فأحببت أن أشدد عليه

Shu’bah came to Humaid and asked him about a hadith, so he narrated it to him.

Then he asked, “Did you hear it?”

He said, “I think so.”

Hammad states, “He gestured with his hands like this—indicating that he does not want him there.”

When he got up and went away, Humaid said, “I heard it from Anas, but he was harsh on me, so I wanted to be harsh on him.”^[98]

 

Shu’bah was known for his strictness. His sheikhs did not always accept that method and were not comfortable with it.

For all these reasons, Shu’bah paid great attention to the word ‘haddathana’, not the words ‘qala (he said)’, or ‘haddatha’ or ‘‘an’, which do not necessitate direct hearing. As a result, he said:

 

كل‏ من سمعت منه حدثنا فأنا له عبد

Anyone from whom I hear ‘haddathana’, I become his servant.^[99]

 

Shu’bah’s great scrutiny regarding sima’ became evident in a famous incident about him, in which he undertook a long journey between various countries to confirm the sima’ of only one hadith, trying to identify the original narrator who narrated that hadith.

Nasr ibn Hammad al Bajali states:

 

كنا بباب شعبة نتذاكر الحديث فقلت حدثنا إسرائيل عن أبي إسحاق عن عبد الله بن عطاء عن عقبة بن عامر قال كنا في عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم نتناوب رعاية الإبل… (وذكر الحديث) قال فسمعني شعبة فخرج إلي فلطمني لطمة ثم دخل ثم خرج فقال ما له يبكي فقال عبد الله بن إدريس لقد أسأت إليه فقال أما تسمع ما يحدث عن إسرائيل عن أبي إسحاق عن عبد الله بن عطاء عن عقبة بن عامر وأنا قلت لأبي إسحاق أسمع عبد الله بن عطاء من عقبة بن عامر قال لا وغضب وكان مسعر بن كيدام حاضرا فقال لي مسعر أغضبت الشيخ فقلت ما له ليصححن لي هذا الحديث أو لأسقطن حديثه فقال مسعر عبد الله بن عطاء (ت ١٤٠ه)‏ بمكة فرحلت إليه لم أرد الحج إنما أردت الحديث فلقيت عبد الله بن عطاء فسألته فقال سعد بن إبراهيم حدثني فقال لي مالك بن أنس سعد بن إبراهيم بالمدينة لم يحج العام فدخلت المدينة فلقيت سعد بن إبراهيم (ت ١٢٥) فسألته فقال الحديث من عندكم زياد بن مخراق حدثني فقلت أي شيء هذا الحديث بينا هو كوفي صار مكيا صار مدنيا صار بصريا فدخلت البصرة فلقيت زياد بن مخراق فسألته فقال ليس هذا من بابتك قلت بلى قال لا تريده قلت أريده قال شهر بن حوشب حدثني عن أبي ريحانة عن عقبة بن عامر قال فلما ذكر لي شهرا قلت دمر علي هذا الحديث لو صح لي هذا الحديث كان أحب إلي من أهلي ومن مالي ومن الدنيا كلها

We were at the door of Shu’bah, discussing Hadith. I said, “Isra’il narrated to us — from Abu Ishaq — from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ata’ — from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir who said, ‘During the time of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, we took turns taking care of camels…’” (He mentioned the hadith.)

Shu’bah heard me. He came out, gave me a slap, and entered his house. Then he emerged and said, “Why is he crying?”

‘Abdullah ibn Idris said, “You have offended him.”

He said, “Don’t you hear what he is narrating from Isra’il — from Abu Ishaq — from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ata’ — from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir? I asked Abu Ishaq, ‘Did ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ata’ hear from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir?’ He said, ‘No.’” He got angry.

Mis’ar ibn Kidam was present and said to me, “You have angered the sheikh.”

Then I said, “What is the matter with him? He must authenticate this hadith for me or I will omit his hadith.”

Mis’ar said, “‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ata’ (d. 140 AH) is in Makkah.”

I travelled to Makkah. I did not intend performing Hajj. My only intention was the hadith. So I met ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ata’ and asked him. He said, “Sa’d ibn Ibrahim narrated it to me.”

Malik ibn Anas informed me, “Sa’d ibn Ibrahim is in Madinah. He did not perform Hajj this year.” I went to Madinah, met Sa’d ibn Ibrahim (d. 125 AH) and asked him and he said, “The hadith emerged from your side. Ziyad ibn Mikhraq narrated it to me.”

I thought to myself, “What hadith is this? Initially it was from Kufah, then from Makkah, then from Madinah, and then from Basrah.”

Thereafter, I entered Basrah, met Ziyad ibn Mikhraq, and asked him. He said, “This is not your concern.”

I said, “Yes, it is.”

He said, “You don’t want it.”

I said, “I want it.”

He said, “Shahr ibn Hawshab narrated it to me from Abu Rayhanah — from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir.”

When he mentioned Shahr to me, I said, “Destroy this hadith for me. If this hadith were authentic, it would be dearer to me than my family, my money, and the whole world.”^[100]

 

All of this indicates to the fact that criticism accompanied the development of the narration. If the narrators created a new method, the critics would come up with an appropriate criticism.

 

The third characteristic: It is an objective criticism that does not contain favouritism or prejudice towards those who differ in thought and belief

By this characteristic, I mean that Shu’bah’s criticism did not favour the Sunnis, his sheikhs, and those close to him, and declare them trustworthy, and make tad’if of those who disagreed in thought and belief, like the Shia, Murji’ah, and others, and declare them da’if, merely due to the differences. Rather, the criticism was objective, related to the narrator’s accuracy, memorisation, and truthfulness.

An example of this is that he accepted some narrators who differed in belief, because he believed that they were truthful and accurate. From amongst these examples is that he was once asked:

 

لم تروي عن حماد بن أبي سليمان وكان مرجئا

Why do you narrate from Hammad ibn Abi Sulaiman whereas he is a Murji’?

 

He replied:

 

كان صدوق اللسان

He had a truthful tongue.^[101]

 

Hammad was one of the leading jurists in Kufah and he held a Murji’ah view,^[102] but that did not prevent Shu’bah from narrating and authenticating him.

Likewise, he was asked:

 

لم‏ تروي عن عمرو بن مرة وكان مرجئا

Why did you narrate from ‘Amr ibn Murrah when he was a Murji’i?

 

He replied:

 

كان أصغر القوم وأكثرهم علما

He was the youngest and most learned of the people.^[103]

 

His stance with the Shia was a fair one, as he made tawthiq of some well-known Shia, such as Jabir al Ju’fi, even though he contradicted majority of the Muhaddithin^[104] in this. He narrated from some of those who were known for their Shi’ism, such as Aban ibn Taghlib^[105] (d. 141 AH). In fact, it is said that Aban was the one who guided, persuaded, and assisted Shu’bah towards Hadith.^[106]

Shu’bah was deceived by Abu Maryam ‘Abdul Ghaffar ibn al Qasim. He praised him and had a good opinion of him, even though he was one of the leaders of the Shia. Many narrations appeared from him that were denounced by Huffaz after Shu’bah.^[107]

However, when he saw some of the Shia lies in Hadith, he criticised them and their narrations. He is reported to have said:

 

أتيت أبا هارون العبدي فقلت أخرج إلي ما سمعته من أبي سعيد أي الخدري فأخرج إلي كتابا فإذا فيه حدثنا أبو سعيد أن عثمان أدخل حفرته وإنه لكافر بالله قلت تقر بهذا أو تؤمن قال هو على ما ترى فدفعت الكتاب في يده وقمت

I came to Abu Harun al ‘Abdi, and said to him, “Bring to me what you heard from Abu Sa’id—i.e. al Khudri.”

He brought a book to me and it contained a narration that Abu Sa’id narrated to us that ‘Uthman entered his grave while he disbelieved in Allah. I said, “Do you acknowledge this or do you believe?”

He said, “It is as you see.”

Thereafter, I put the book into his hand and went away.^[108]

 

Since then, he would make severe tad’if of Abu Harun.

It is as if their narration, truthfulness, and accuracy are on one side, and their belief and opinion are on the other side, which is an accurate, objective stance.

It is evident that there was no favouritism with Shu’bah when he criticised the memorisation of some of his most eminent sheikhs. He said about his most important sheikh in fiqh:

 

كان حماد بن أبي سليمان لا يحفظ

Hammad ibn Abi Sulaiman did not memorise well.^[109]

 

This is despite the fact that he asked him dozens of fiqhi issues and he transmitted them, as is clear from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah.^[110]

His scrutiny of his sheikhs in the narration and tadlis, which passed, showed that he did not favour his sheikhs, and it will come in due course that he sometimes angered his sheikhs regarding that.

Likewise, his scrutiny of his peers among the great scholars such as Sufyan al Thawri and Abu ‘Awanah al Waddah al Yashkuri, indicates to that.^[111]

 

The fourth characteristic: It was a consistent fixed criticism that included everyone, even Shu’bah himself

Since this approach is consistent, fixed, and strong, and includes every narrator, regardless of his position, it includes Shu’bah himself, and this appears in several ways:

 

Shu’bah was extremely careful of himself for fear of error and confusion

It is as if Shu’bah, while he was a very careful investigator of other narrators, he was also very careful of his memorisation and accuracy. Therefore, he designed a special method for himself through which he would ensure his memorisation and accuracy of Hadith. The most important aspect in this method was frequent repetition. This becomes clear in his sayings, such as his statement:

 

كنت آتي قتادة فأسأله عن حديثين ثم يقول لي أزيدك فأقول لا حتى أتحفظهما وأتقنهما

I used to go to Qatadah and ask him for two ahadith. He would then say to me, “Should I add more for you?”

I would say, “No, not until I memorise and master them.”^[112]

 

Mastery of memorisation was the foundation in Shu’bah’s method. Similarly, Bakr ibn Bakkar said:

 

صلى‏ شعبة الغداة فسكت حتى طال ذلك ثم أقبل علي فقال ترون أني كنت أسبح إنما كان اليوم درسي حديث قتادة فتفلت علي حديثان فجعلت أستذكرهما حتى ذكرتهما

Shu’bah performed the Fajr Salah, and remained silent for a long time. Then he turned to me and said, “Do you think I was busy with tasbih? Today was my lesson of Hadith by Qatadah, and two ahadith escaped me, so I started recalling them until I remembered them.”^[113]

 

Amongst them is the statement of Muaz ibn Muaz who said:

 

كنا بباب ابن عون فخرج علينا شعبة وقد عقد بيديه جميعا فكلمه بعضنا فقال لا تكلمني فإني قد حفظت عن ابن عون عشرة أحاديث أخاف أن أنساها

We were at the door of Ibn ‘Awn. Shu’bah came out to us, holding all his fingers together. Some of us spoke to him, and he said, “Do not speak to me, for I have memorised ten ahadith from Ibn ‘Awn. I am afraid I might forget them.”^[114]

 

Out of his desire for mastery, he repeatedly visited the sheikh and heard from him. Shu’bah states:

 

ما رويت عن رجل حديثا واحدا إلا أتيته أكثر من مرة والذي رويت عنه عشرة أحاديث أتيته أكثر من عشر مرات والذي رويت عنه خمسين حديثا أتيته أكثر من خمسين مرة والذي رويت عنه مئة حديث أتيته أكثر من مئة مرة إلا حيان البارقي فإني سمعت منه هذه الأحاديث ثم عدت إليه فوجدته قد مات

I did not narrate a hadith from anyone except after going to him more than once. He from whom I narrated ten ahadith, I went to him more than ten times. He from whom I narrated fifty ahadith, I went to more than fifty times. He from whom I narrated a hundred ahadith, I went to him more than a hundred times, except for Hayyan al Bariqi. I heard these ahadith from him, and then I returned to him and found out that he had passed away.^[115]

 

This is confirmed by his statement:

 

ما‏ سمعت من رجل عدد حديث إلا اختلفت إليه أكثر من عدد ما سمعت منه الحديث

I did not hear a number of ahadith from anyone, except that I went to him more than the number of ahadith I heard from him.^[116]

 

Rather, it is due to him acquiring few ahadith (at a time) and caution in it, he says about his relationship with ‘Amr ibn Dinar:

 

اختلفت إلى عمرو بن دينار خمسمئة مرة وما سمعت منه إلا مئة حديث في كل خمس مجالس حديثا

I went back and forth to ‘Amr ibn Dinar five-hundred times. I only heard a hundred ahadith from him, one hadith in every five meetings.^[117]

 

He would only narrate a hadith if he heard it repeatedly. Abu al Walid al Tayalisi states:

 

سألت‏ شعبة عن حديث فقال والله لا حدثتك به لم أسمعه إلا مرة

I asked Shu’bah about a hadith and he said, “By Allah, I will not narrate it to you. I only heard it once.”^[118]

 

It is reported that some of his students asked him about a hadith, saying to him:

 

سمعته من إسماعيل بن رجاء قال سمعته يا غلام من إسماعيل بن رجاء ثمانين مرة ولا والله لا أحدثك به أبدا

Did you hear it from Ismail ibn Raja’?

He said, “O boy, I heard it from Ismail ibn Raja’ eighty times. By Allah, I will never narrate it to you.”^[119]

 

For this reason, his peers and students knew this keenness and verification. Hence, they would give him preference over themselves. Hammad ibn Zaid, the sheikh and scholar of Basrah, said:

 

ما أبالي من خالفني في حديث إلا أن يكون شعبة فإن شعبة كان معنيا بالحديث كان يأتي الشيخ يكرر عليه

I do not care if anyone disagrees with me in a hadith except for Shu’bah, for Shu’bah was concerned with Hadith. He would come to the sheikh and repeat it to him.^[120]

 

Another narration states:

 

إن شعبة كان يسمع ويعيد ويبدي وكنت أنا أسمع مرة واحدة

Shu’bah would listen, repeat, and present, and I used to listen only once.^[121]

 

It is as if Shu’bah believed that he had thus memorised many authentic ahadith and received them in the correct manner. Therefore, he used to be surprised to hear a hadith that he did not know. An example of this is his saying:

 

إني لأذاكر بالحديث قد فاتني فأمرض

When I am reminded of a hadith that escaped me, I become ill.^[122]

 

One day a hadith was mentioned to him that he had not heard, so he started saying:

 

واحزناه

Oh, how sad?^[123]

 

Part of his authentication is that he did not narrate much. Yahya al Qattan states:

 

لزمت شعبة عشرين سنة فما كنت أرجع من عنده إلا بثلاثة أحاديث وعشرة أكثر ما كنت أسمع منه في كل يوم

I accompanied Shu’bah for twenty years. I would return from him with three ahadith only. Ten were the most I heard from him in a full day.^[124]

 

Shu’bah would not favour himself or his relatives in his criticism

This aspect becomes manifest in three ways:

1. Shu’bah sometimes preferred others from amongst his peers to himself in memorising. He said about Hisham al Dastawa’i:

 

كان هشام أحفظ مني عن قتادة

Hisham was better at memorising from Qatadah than me.

 

He said once:

 

هشام الدستوائي أعلم بحديث قتادة مني وأكثر مجالسة له مني

Hisham Dastawa’i was more knowledgeable about the Hadith of Qatadah than I was and he accompanied him more than I did.

 

On another occasion, he said:

 

إذا حدثكم هشام الدستوائي بشيء فاختموا عليه

When Hisham Dastawa’i narrates anything to you, then seal it.^[125]

 

Likewise, he preferred Sufyan al Thawri to himself, saying:

 

إذا‏ خالفني سفيان في حديث فالحديث حديثه

If Sufyan disagrees with me in a hadith, then accept his hadith.^[126]

 

When he disagreed with Sufyan in a hadith, he would say:

 

اذهب بنا إلى الميزان مسعر

Take us to the scale, Mis’ar.

 

He is referring to Mis’ar ibn Kidam (d. 153 AH), the thiqah Imam.^[127]

This showed that he did not favour himself, but rather acknowledged that others might surpass him in memorisation. This is what critics after him also established, as will be mentioned later.

2. He sometimes acknowledged his human weakness in narration and declared it. This means that he did not favour himself.

He is reported to have said:

 

لم أداهن إلا في هذا الحديث

I did not favour, except in this hadith.

 

Then he explained this, by saying:

 

إن قتادة حدثه عن أنس بن مالك عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال سووا صفوفكم فإن تسوية الصف من تمام الصلاة قال شعبة فكرهت أن أوقفه عليه فيفسده علي فلم أوقفه عليه

Qatadah narrated to him from Anas ibn Malik — from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who said, “Straighten your rows, for straightening the row is part of the completion the Salah.”

Shu’bah said, “I disliked narrating it as a mawquf narration on him, lest he would ruin it for me. Therefore, I did not make it mawquf on him.”^[128]

 

This means that his intense admiration for hearing this hadith from Qatadah prompted him not to ask him about hearing it, even though he narrated it with the word ‘an. Thus, he regarded this to be favouring Qatadah.

Among his confessions of his human weakness is that he mentioned his desire to narrate from the sheikhs (alone) and alienate his peers from them. He states:

 

خرجت‏ أنا وهشيم إلى مكة فلما قدمنا الكوفة رآني وأنا قاعد مع أبي إسحاق فقال لي من هذا قال قلت شاعر السبيع فلما خرجنا جعلت أقول له حدثنا أبو إسحاق فقال لي وأين رأيته فقلت الذي قلت لك شاعر السبيع هو أبو إسحاق قال فلما قدمنا مكة مررت به وهو قاعد مع الزهري فقلت يا أبا معاوية من هذا الرجل فقال شرطي لبني أمية فلما قفلنا جعل يقول حدثنا الزهري قال قلت أي مكان رأيت الزهري قال الذي رأيته معي قلت لك شرطي لبني أمية قلت أرني الكتاب فأخرج إلي فخرقته

Hushaym and I went out to Makkah. When we came to Kufah, he saw me sitting with Abu Ishaq and asked me, “Who is this?”

I said, “The poet of al Sabi’.”

When we left, I started telling him, “Abu Ishaq narrated to us.”

He asked me, “Where did you see him?”

I said, “The one I told you that he is the poet of al Sabi’ is Abu Ishaq.”

When we came to Makkah, I passed by him while he was sitting with al Zuhri. I asked him, “O Abu Muawiyah, who is this man?”

He replied, “A policeman of the Banu Umayyah.”

When we departed, he started saying, “Al Zuhri narrated to us.”

I asked, “Where did you see al Zuhri?”

He said, “The person you saw with me and I told you that he is a policeman of the Banu Umayyah.”

I said, “Show me the book.”

He took it out and I tore it up.^[129]

 

In this incident, Shu’bah acknowledges that he wanted to narrate isolated from his peers by hearing it from Abu Ishaq, which is what narrators were very keen on doing.

3. Shu’bah did not favour his relatives in his criticism. He said about his son:

 

سميت ابني سعدا فما سعد ولا فلح

I named my son Sa’d, but he was neither fortunate nor successful.^[130]

 

Sa’d is one of the narrators of Hadith from his father, but his ahadith are few.^[131] Sa’d would say:

 

كان أبي لا يدعني أكتب الحديث وكان يقول لي إن أحببت أن تكون شقيا فاطلب الحديث

My father would not let me write Hadith and would tell me, “If you like to be wretched, seek (knowledge of) Hadith.”^[132]

 

Likewise, he did not favour his son-in-law Hisham ibn Hassan (d. 147 AH) who was one of the prominent Muhaddithin in Basrah. However, Shu’bah did not see him to be a Hafiz, hence, he said:

 

لو حابيت أحدا لحابيت هشام بن حسان كان ختني ولم يكن يحفظ

If I had favoured anyone, I would have favoured Hisham ibn Hassan. He was my son-in-law and could not memorise.^[133]

 

This is despite him being among the prominent thiqah narrators according to others.^[134]

 

Critics criticised Shu’bah using his own tools

Perhaps the most important tool used by former critics of Shu’bah was the comparison between him and other narrators. The two great Imams, Yahya ibn Ma’in and Ahmed ibn Hanbal—who were from the class of his students—criticised him in many statements. Perhaps the most important of this was they compared his narrations with the narrations of his companion Sufyan al Thawri from their sheikhs. They found that Sufyan was a better Hafiz and more accurate, so they declared that. ‘Abbas al Duri states:

 

سمعت يحيى بن معين يقول ليس أحد يخالف سفيان الثوري إلا كان القول قول سفيان قلت وشعبة أيضا إن خالفه قال نعم قلت لأبي زكريا فإن خالف شعبة في حديث البصريين القول قول من يكون قال ليس يكاد يخالف شعبة سفيان في حديث البصريين

I heard Yahya ibn Ma’in say, “No one disagrees with Sufyan al Thawri except that Sufyan’s statement is accepted.”

I asked, “Even Shu’bah, if he disagrees with him?”

He said, “Yes.”

I said to Abu Zakariyya, “If Shu’bah disagrees regarding the Hadith of the people of Basrah, then whose opinion is accepted?”

He said, “Shu’bah hardly disagrees with Sufyan in the Hadith of the people of Basrah.”^[135]

 

Ibn Ma’in confirmed this by stating in another place about the difference between Sufyan and Shu’bah regarding the Hadith of the people of Kufah. He states:

 

كان سفيان أحفظهما للرجال

Sufyan was the better Hafiz of the two, regarding narrators.^[136]

 

Ahmed held the same opinion. He was asked:

 

إذا اختلف سفيان وشعبة في الحديث فالقول قول من قال سفيان أقل خطأ وبقول سفيان آخذ

If Sufyan and Shu’bah differed regarding a hadith, whose opinion will be taken?

He said, “Sufyan made fewer mistakes. I would take Sufyan’s opinion.”^[137]

 

In fact, at times, they even counted the number of his mistakes in the ahadith of his sheikhs. Ibn Ma’in states:

 

روى شعبة عن الأعمش خمسمئة لم يخطئ إلا في عشرة أحاديث

Shu’bah narrated five hundred ahadith from al A’mash. He made mistakes in only ten ahadith.^[138]

 

The error here is related to the names of narrators in the isnad. Ahmed states:

 

ما أكثر ما يخطئ شعبة في أسامي الرجال

How often does Shu’bah make mistakes in the names of narrators?^[139]

 

In another statement, he says:

 

كان شعبة يقلب أسامي الرجال

Shu’bah used to change the names of narrators.^[140]

 

Similarly, Ibn Ma’in also stated:

 

وشعبة ثقة ثبت ولكنه يخطئ في أسماء رجال ويصحف

Shu’bah is thiqah and thabt; however, he makes mistakes and changes the names of narrators.^[141]

 

Critics have tried to find an explanation for these errors. Ahmed attributed them to the fact that he would memorise without writing, in an era wherein the chains of transmission were long and widespread. Ahmed states:

 

كان شعبة يحفظ لم يكتب إلا شيئا قليلا وربما وهم في الشيء

Shu’bah would memorise and not write. He only wrote a little. At times, he became confused with some things.^[142]

 

It seems as though Shu’bah was more concerned with memorising than writing. Thus, he is reported to have said:

 

حفظت‏ علما عن الحكم وحماد فأما الذي كتبته فنسيته وأما الذي لم أكتبه فحفظته

I memorised knowledge from al Hakam and Hammad. As for what I wrote, I forgot it, and as for what I did not write, I memorised it.^[143]

 

He sometimes forbade his students from writing and criticised them for their lack of memorisation and excessive writing.^[144]

Shu’bah’s criticism was not limited to these two Imams. He was also criticised in his time by great eminent scholars. Imam Malik criticised him openly in his statement:

 

عجبا من شعبة هذا الذي ينتقي الرجال وهو يحدث عن عاصم بن عبيد الله

It is astonishing that Shu’bah is the one who selects narrators yet narrates from ‘Asim ibn ‘Ubayd Allah.^[145]

 

He was also criticised by his students in his gatherings. One of the most important students of Shu’bah—’Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi—narrates an incident wherein he states:

 

اختلفوا يوما عند شعبة فقالوا اجعل بيننا وبينك حكما فقال قد رضيت بالأحول يعني يحيى بن سعيد القطان وهو من طلاب شعبة كذلك فما برحنا حتى جاء يحيى فتحاكموا إليه فقضى على شعبة فقال له شعبة ومن يطيق نقدك يا أحول

One day, we disagreed with Shu’bah and said, “Appoint an arbitrator between us and you.”

He said, “I am satisfied with al Ahwal,” referring to Yahya ibn Sa’id al Qattan, who was also one of Shu’bah’s students. We remained until Yahya came and they litigated before him. He passed a verdict against Shu’bah.

Shu’bah said to him, “Who can tolerate your criticism, O Ahwal?”^[146]

 

The books of ‘Ilal (reasons for criticism) contain examples of Shu’bah’s mistakes wherein he differed with other thiqah narrators. They would explicitly say:

 

إن الوهم في هذا الحديث من شعبة

The mistake in this hadith is from Shu’bah.

 

They then provide evidence for that.^[147]

Among their criticism of Shu’bah is their scrutiny of his sheikhs. He is known for narrating from thiqah and accurate sheikhs; however, when the critics investigated this, they mentioned that he erred in narrating from some of them. Perhaps, that is because their errors were not apparent to him. Among them was Musa ibn ‘Ubaydah al Rabadhi. Someone said to Ahmed ibn Hanbal:

 

قد روى عنه سفيان وشعبة قال لو بان لشعبة ما بان لغيره ما روى عنه

Sufyan and Shu’bah narrated from him.

He said, “If Shu’bah was aware of what became apparent to others, he would not have narrated from him.”^[148]

 

Among them is Abu Maryam ‘Abdul Ghaffar ibn al Qasim. Al Daraqutni said:

 

شيخ شعبة أثنى عليه شعبة وخفي على شعبة وبقي بعد شعبة فخلط

He was a sheikh of Shu’bah. Shu’bah praised him. His situation was hidden from Shu’bah. He lived after Shu’bah and mixed up narrations.^[149]

 

All of this criticism indicates that the tools that Shu’bah used in criticism were standard tools suitable for everyone. When they were applied to him, the critics exposed his delusions and mistakes, which mean that there is no favouritism in criticism, that everyone was under its umbrella, and that the critical society was a lively and active society, wherein there was no sanctity for anyone.

 

The fifth characteristic: It is the narrations that judge a narrator and criticism includes both the text and the chain of transmission

One of the features of criticism in that era is that narrations judge the narrator’s ahadith, not the critic’s trust in the narrator whereby he remains accepted in all his narrations. This means that the critic, even if he was confident in the narrator initially, examines each of his narrations separately to see if he is right or wrong in it. Then he issues his ruling on the narrator after that. If his mistakes are many, he reconsiders his ruling of thiqah on the narrator and issues another ruling according to many factors, according to the size of the error, its effect, its cause, etc. Sometimes a critic may make tad’if of the narrator due to one hadith wherein he made a mistake. The critic might see that this is not a trivial error and only occurs from a da’if narrator, so he issues his judgement of tad’if for the narrator. All of this requires the critic’s consideration to be directed to the texts and the isnad before judging the narrator himself, which I can call ‘reverse criticism’. By this, I mean that the latter scholars would issue their judgement on the narration based on the state of the narrator, unlike the Imams of criticism in the era of the narration, who issued their judgement on the narrator based on the state of his narrations.^[150]

This appears clearly in Shu’bah, as he made tad’if of some of the narrators because of one hadith, or almost weakened them thereby. I have mentioned previously that he left Hakim ibn Jubayr—who is one of the less frequent narrators—due to one hadith, which is the hadith of Sadaqah (charity).^[151] The hadith is related to fiqh in a way; therefore, perhaps Shu’bah saw that the isolation of this narrator was something that someone like him could not bear, so he made his tad’if thereby. Shu’bah’s student, the great critic ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi, also confirmed this same idea and that the narration is what judges the narrator. He said regarding Hakim ibn Jubayr:

 

إنما‏ روى أحاديث يسيرة وفيها أحاديث منكرات

He only narrated a few ahadith in which there are munkar narrations.^[152]

 

Similar is the case of what was mentioned previously, that Shu’bah criticised ‘Abdul Malik ibn Abi Sulaiman for narrating a hadith about Shuf’ah (pre-emption) that was isolated to him and no one else narrated it. It is as if he denounced the fact that such an important hadith was in the quiver of one man^[153] and said regarding it:

 

لو روى عبد الملك بن أبي سليمان حديثا آخر مثل حديث الشفعة طرحت حديثه

If ‘Abdul Malik ibn Abi Sulaiman narrated another hadith like the hadith of Shuf’ah, I would discard his ahadith.^[154]

 

This confirms that the critic’s consideration of the text and the hadith, in its entirety, preceded his judgement of narrators.

This methodology was confirmed by Shu’bah when he was eager to meet Abu Harun al ‘Abdi, and he would say:

 

كنت ألقى الركبان أسأل عن أبي هارون العبدي

I used to meet the riders and ask them about Abu Harun al ‘Abdi.^[155]

 

This was due to his love to sit with him and learn from him. But when he met him and examined his scroll, he found munkar and false ahadith, so he ruled that he was da’if because of his ahadith.^[156]

Shu’bah’s methods of judging narrators, which passed previously, confirm all of that, because Shu’bah looked at the narrator’s reports in their entirety. He would compare the narrations, he would be surprised by some of the ahadith from some of the sheikhs and revert to them, or he would look at the narrator’s additions in the texts and isnad. This is confirmed by his foundational statements that were mentioned previously, such as his statement in response to those who asked him:

متى‏ يترك حديث الرجل فأجاب بأنه إذا حدث عن المعروفين ما لا يعرفه المعروفون وإذا أكثر الغلط وإذا اتهم بالكذب وإذا روى حديثا غلطا مجتمعا عليه فلم يتهم نفسه فيتركه طرح حديثه وما كان غير ذلك فارووا عنه

When will a person’s Hadith be discarded?

He replied, “When he narrates from well-known people what the well-known people do not know, when there are many mistakes, when he is accused of lying, and if he narrates a hadith with a unanimous mistake and does not accuse himself and leave it, his Hadith will be rejected. Anything other than that, narrate it from him.”^[157]

 

This indicates that judging of a narrator is based on his narrations, and that looking at the text and isnad of a hadith precedes passing judgement on the narrator.

This is clearly confirmed by his founding statement when he was asked:

 

من أين تعلم أن الشيخ يكذب قال إذا روى عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لا تأكلوا القرعة حتى تذبحوها علمت أنه يكذب

How do you know that the sheikh is lying?

He said, “If he narrates from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that do not eat a pumpkin until you slaughter it, I know that he is lying.”^[158]

 

This is clear in that issuing the ruling on the text precedes issuing the ruling on the narrator, because, if the narrator narrates something that is denounced, the critics judge him to be a liar.

 

4. The Effects of the critical approach on the Hadith Society in that era

This strict critical approach had important effects on the history of Hadith narration. Perhaps, the most important of these effects appear in two aspects:

 

1. The narrators’ fear of the authority of critics

This means that the critical authority concerned with monitoring narrations, announcing errors and disseminating them among people, publishing the names of those who err, and sometimes defaming them, was a frightening authority for narrators. This caused them to worry about their weakness, error, or lie being announced to ‘public opinion’.

It can be said that the critics—particularly Shu’bah—created a general opinion in the scholarly community at that time. The critical scholarly authority was in their hands, which limited the lying and leniency in narrations. Because, if the narrator knew that some critics were tracking his narrations, and this could affect his reputation and fame in the religious scholarly community in his city and locality, he would be afraid and cautious in narrating after that, or at least he will not be a bold liar.

The narrators’ fear of Shu’bah is evident in several examples:

Among that is that he would defame those who lied about a hadith or made mistakes in it and would announce that in a gathering, which made groups of people come to Shu’bah and request him not to do that. An example of this is Shu’bah’s stance on the pious man Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash (d. 138 AH), who was one of the well-known worshippers. He stayed awake at night by praying and spent the day fasting. He was the peacock of Qurra’, who has been known for his goodness for a long time, as previously mentioned. However, Shu’bah was severe in his criticism, announcing this clearly in gatherings. The learned thiqah Sheikh of Basrah, Hammad ibn Zaid states:

 

كلمنا شعبة أنا وعباد بن عباد وجرير بن حازم وهما من كبار أهل البصرة كذلك في أبان بن أبي عياش فقلنا لو كففت عنه فكأنه لان وأجابنا قال فذهبت يوما أريد الجمعة فإذا شعبة ينادي من خلفي فقال ذاك الذي قلتم لا أراه يسعني

‘Abbad ibn ‘Abbad, Jarir ibn Hazim—who were among the prominent people of Basrah—and I spoke to Shu’bah about Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash. We said, “If only you could stop criticising him?”

It seemed as though he softened and he answered us. One day, I went to perform the Friday Salah, and suddenly Shu’bah was calling from behind me. He said, “The aspect you spoke about, I do not think it is possible for me.”^[159]

 

That is, the great scholars of Basrah are requesting Shu’bah to remain silent about this pious person and not to defame him, due to his Hadith errors. It is as if Shu’bah was convinced of that for a while, as the man was one of the righteous people, but when he considered and contemplated, he declared that this is not possible and that remaining silent about something like this is not permissible, as he is narrating and making mistakes, so it must be exposed.

It seems that this request regarding this narrator was repeated many times. According to one narration, Shu’bah was walking on a rainy day, when some people asked him where he was going. He said:

 

هو ذا أمضي أستعدي على أبان فقلت ألم تضمن لنا أن تمسك عنه فقال لا أصبر لا أصبر فمضى

I am going to prepare for Aban (i.e. take him to the judge).

I said, “Did you not guarantee us that you will stay away from him?”

He said, “I cannot tolerate it, I cannot tolerate.”

He then proceeded.^[160]

 

The preparation here is to go to the judge and speak to him, as if Shu’bah needed to go to a higher authority, especially with this person’s piety and fame.

All of this had an impact on Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash and he used to request Hammad and say to him:

 

أحب أن تكلم شعبة أن يكف عني

I would like you to talk to Shu’bah to stop criticising me.

 

It was as if he perceived that his reputation was deteriorating in the public opinion of the scholarly community, so he resorted to this request. Hammad states:

 

فكلمته فكف عنه أياما فأتاني في بعض الليل فقال إنك سألتني أن أكف عن أبان وإنه لا يحل الكف عنه فإنه يكذب على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

I spoke to him and he stopped criticising him for a few days. Then he came to me one night and said, “You asked me to refrain from criticising Aban. It is not permissible to refrain from him, as he is lying against the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”^[161]

 

Shu’bah made some severe remarks about Aban, such as his saying:

 

لولا الحياء من الناس لما صليت على أبان

Were it not for being ashamed before people, I would not have prayed for Aban.^[162]

 

Likewise, his saying:

 

لأن يزني الرجل خير له من أن يروي عن أبان بن أبي عياش‏ أو لأن أرتكب سبعين كبيرة أحب إلي من أن أحدث عن أبان بن أبي عياش

For a person to commit adultery is better for him than to narrate from Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash,^[163] or (he said) committing seventy major sins is more beloved to me than narrating from Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash.^[164]

 

Shu’bah was not satisfied with only defaming him. In fact, sometimes he grabbed his neck and tried to take him to the judge. Hammad states:

 

رأيت شعبة قد لبب أبان بن أبي عياش يقول أستعدي عليك إلى السلطان فإنك تكذب على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال فبصر بي فقال يا أبا إسماعيل قال فأتيته فما زلت أطلب إليه حتى خلصته

I saw Shu’bah holding Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash around his neck, saying, “Get ready to go to the Sultan, for you are lying against the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”

Aban looked at me and said, “O Abu Ismail (help me).”

I came to him and continued to ask him (to release him) until I released him.^[165]

 

It was as if Shu’bah was doing the work of the police at times, however, a scholarly police, monitoring narrators, seizing them, and trying to take them to the ruler, so that they would stop their crime. Some of those who knew these narrators would be frightened by them, then Shu’bah would leave them.

In fact, some of his students likened him to that in reality, as Abu al Walid al Tayalisi said:

 

كنت إذا أخرجت شعبة من الحديث كأنه شرطي

If I removed Shu’bah from Hadith, it was as if he were a policeman…^[166]

 

This ‘policeman’ would use his hands at times. The story of Shu’bah’s journey has been mentioned before, wherein he once heard a hadith from some of the narrators which he disliked. Nasr ibn Hammad al Bajali said:

 

فلطمني شعبة فتنحيت في ناحية أبكي فقال أي شعبة مستغربا ما له يبكي فقال له‎ ابن إدريس إنك أسأت إليه فقال شعبة انظر ما يحدث عن إسرائيل عن أبي‎ اسحاق

Shu’bah slapped me, so I moved away to the side to cry. He—i.e. Shu’bah—said in astonishment, “Why is he crying?”

Ibn Idris said to him, “You have offended him.”

Shu’bah said, “See what he is narrating from Isra’il — from Abu Ishaq.”^[167]

 

Here, Shu’bah is slapping and the narrator is crying.

Shu’bah did not limit himself to Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash in announcing criticism in this manner. He severely criticised a well-known senior judge and a well-known pious scholar. In fact, he was a judge who was close to the authorities and a tutor for the children of Khalifah al Mansur, as previously mentioned. Despite this, Shu’bah was harsh in criticising him. He was al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah, the scholar and jurist of Kufah (d. 153 AH). Shu’bah accused him of lying and supported that with several evidences, as previously mentioned. He announced that in the gatherings and warned his students and peers against narrating from him. Ghundar said:

 

قال لي شعبة لا‏ تقرب الحسن بن عمارة فإني إن رأيتك تقربه لم احدثك

Shu’bah said to me, “Do not go close to al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah, for if I see you close to him, I will not narrate to you.”^[168]

 

In fact, he would send his students to his peers to warn them against mentioning his name in narration gatherings. Shu’bah sent Abu Dawood al Tayalisi to Jarir ibn Hazim, saying:

 

لا ترو عن الحسن بن عمارة فإنه يكذب

Do not narrate from al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah, for he lies.^[169]

 

News of this spread, and there was much criticism and talk about al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah, which caused confusion in the scholarly community. People were divided within it. Some agreed with Shu’bah and others disagreed with him. In fact, a group of senior scholars in Basrah came to Shu’bah, requesting him to remain silent about al Hassan. Among them were Hammad ibn Zaid and Jarir ibn Hazim. Shu’bah was severe on them when they came to him. He even described Jarir as crazy for this request. Shu’bah said:

 

ألا تعجبون من جرير بن حازم هذا المجنون أتاني هو وحماد بن زيد فكلماني أن أكف عن ذكر الحسن بن عمارة أنا أكف عن ذكره لا والله لا أكف عن ذكره

Are you not surprised by Jarir ibn Hazim? This crazy person came to me with Hammad ibn Zaid. They asked me to stop mentioning al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah. Will I stop mentioning him? No, by Allah, I will not stop mentioning him.^[170]

 

It was as if Jarir became despondent by Shu’bah’s words about him and saw how the people followed Shu’bah against him, so he used to say:

 

ترك شعبة حديث الحسن بن عمارة وتكلم فيه ثم تكلم الناس فيه بعد

Shu’bah left the Hadith of al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah and criticised him, and since then people criticised him.^[171]

 

Among those who disagreed with Shu’bah’s opinion regarding al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah was Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah. He was asked:

 

أكان الحسن يحفظ قال كان له فضل وغيره أحفظ منه

Did al Hassan memorise well?

He replied, “He was virtuous but others memorised better than him.”^[172]

 

This is a moderate statement, which is different to the statement that declared him a liar. When ‘Isa ibn Yunus (d. 187 AH) was asked about al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah, he said:

 

شيخ صالح وكان صديقا لأخي إسرائيل قال فيه شعبة وأعانه عليه سفيان

He was a pious sheikh who was a friend of my brother Isra’il. Shu’bah criticised him and Sufyan assisted him on that.^[173]

 

It seems as if he does not agree with either of their statements. Jarir ibn ‘Abdul Hamid said:

 

ما ظننت أني أعيش إلى دهر يحدث فيه عن محمد بن إسحاق ويسكت فيه عن الحسن بن عمارة

I did not think that I would live until such a time wherein people would narrate from Muhammad ibn Ishaq and remain silent about al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah.^[174]

 

This means denouncing what had happened to the man.

Al Hakim quoted in Tarikh Naysabur the statement of Yazid ibn Harun (118-206 AH), the great Imam, a student of Shu’bah and the sheikh of Ahmed, Ibn Ma’in, and their class:

 

الويل لشعبة والله إني لأخشى أن يكون قد لقي ذلا في الآخرة بما صنع بابن عمارة وإن أهل بيت الحسن يدعون الله تعالى عليه حتى الساعة وكان  والله  خيرا من شعبة لو أني وجدت أعوانا لأسقطت شعبة

Woe to Shu’bah! By Allah, I fear that he will be disgraced in the Hereafter for what he did to Ibn ‘Umarah. The family of al Hassan supplicate to Allah against him until now. He was—by Allah—better than Shu’bah. If I had assistants, I would have brought Shu’bah down.^[175]

 

In fact, al Hassan would defend himself against the accusation, which indicates to the controversy that was prevalent in their era. It was as if he was in the dock and had to defend himself. He used to say about his Hadith from al Hakam:

 

إن‏ الحكم أعطاني حديثه عن يحيى في كتاب لأحفظه فحفظته

Al Hakam gave me his Hadith from Yahya in a book to memorise, so I memorised it.^[176]

 

He remained angry with Shu’bah for his comments about him and used to say:

 

الناس كلهم في حل ما خلا شعبة

All the people are exonerated, except for Shu’bah.^[177]

 

It is as if al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah was in great pain. His bad reputation soared in Kufah, Basrah, and other cities because of Shu’bah’s comments about him. Therefore, he did not exonerate him. In fact, Shu’bah and al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah’s case continued to be discussed in scholarly gatherings for a while after their deaths.^[178]

Regardless of Shu’bah’s entitlement to these comments^[179] about him or the entitlement to self-defence by al Hassan and those who stood with him against Shu’bah’s comment, this whole controversy shows us the impact of Shu’bah’s comments regarding narrators and its impact on the scholarly community at that time. It is as if Shu’bah was a powerful scholarly authority, criticising a narrator and damaging his reputation. Then the seniors would come and ask him to stop it, but he would not accept or pay attention to it, but rather increase his denial and warning. Furthermore, he would send his students here and there to warn against that narrator.

However, in addition to this strong authority, the critical community was also a lively society in that era, as some scholars disagreed with Shu’bah and defended al Hassan and asked Shu’bah to refrain from criticising him and to remember him with goodness. In fact, al Hassan himself justified his narrations and did not exonerate Shu’bah.

This whole picture is completely contrary to the picture of the naïve society in which the narrator narrates whatever stories he likes and spreads them among the people and they circulate them without censorship or tracking.

It is as if narrators in Basrah and Kufah at that time heard what Shu’bah did to al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah, who was the pious scholar and famous judge, close to the political authority. Therefore, they began to be cautious about spreading lies openly among the people, as Shu’bah’s tongue was severe and decisive. He would not leave anyone who he heard lying without announcing and spreading it.

When we know that al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah passed away in the year 153 AH, we know that we are talking about problems in the first half of the second century, which is a very early period for all this criticism and controversy to appear.

In fact, the narrators’ fear of Shu’bah reached such an extent that it reached the senior scholars and Huffaz, especially if they narrated from al Hakam ibn ‘Utaybah, the sheikh of Shu’bah. It is reported that Abu ‘Awanah al Yashkuri, the thiqah scholar and distinguished jurist (d. 176 AH), heard four hundred ahadith from al Hakam, but did not narrate except two ahadith. He left the rest out of fear for Shu’bah.^[180]

Perhaps the source of this fear of Shu’bah is that Abu ‘Awanah had narrated some ahadith from al Hakam. Shu’bah announced his displeasure for it, and said:

 

لم يكن ذلك الحكم الذي سمعته

That was not the al Hakam from whom I heard.^[181]

 

It seems as if he was afraid that he would make more mistakes and Shu’bah would defame him openly. This is despite the fact that Abu ‘Awanah is amongst the senior scholars and Huffaz of that time. In fact, some critics have compared his Hadith to that of Shu’bah and Sufyan in terms of strength and accuracy.^[182] Yahya al Qattan preferred him to Shu’bah himself.^[183] Shu’bah would encourage his students to learn from him.^[184]

In fact, Abu ‘Awanah was so afraid of Shu’bah that he followed him on a mistake that he made. Abu ‘Awanah once narrated from Khalid ibn ‘Alqamah. He was told:

 

إن شعبة يحدث به عن خالد ابن عرفطة

Shu’bah narrates it from Khalid ibn ‘Urfutah.

 

Abu ‘Awanah followed Shu’bah, and started narrating from Khalid ibn ‘Urfutah. He said:

 

لعل شعبة أحفظ له مني

Perhaps Shu’bah memorised it better than me.^[185]

 

When he was told later that Shu’bah made a mistake in it, he reverted to his first view and narrated from Khalid ibn ‘Alqamah.^[186] As a result, Imam Ahmed said:

 

كان أبو عوانة مع ثبته واتقانه يفزع من شعبة وخطأ شعبة في حديث الوضوء فروى عن الحكم عن خالد بن عرفطة وإنما هو خالد بن علقمة فتابعه أبو عوانة على خطئه فرواه كذلك

Abu ‘Awanah, despite his astuteness and mastery, was afraid of Shu’bah.^[187] Shu’bah made a mistake in the hadith of Wudu’. He narrated it from al Hakam — from Khalid ibn ‘Urfutah, but the narrator is Khalid ibn ‘Alqamah. Abu ‘Awanah followed him in his mistake and narrated it like that.^[188]

 

Therefore, Shu’bah was frightening for scholars and seniors in the scholarly community, so what about liars and da’if narrators? This means that this authority restricted many people’s audacity to lie.

Among Shu’bah’s authority is that he would scrutinise his sheikhs and stifle them. One day, the thiqah Tabi’i Muawiyah ibn Qurrah narrated a hadith from Ibn ‘Abbas, but he did not meet him, so Shu’bah asked him:

 

من حدثك

Who narrated it to you?

 

It seemed as if Muawiyah felt some kind of doubt about this question and that Shu’bah was beginning to scrutinise him, so he immediately replied:

 

شهر بن حوشب استرحنا من خناقك يا شعبة

Shahr ibn Hawshab. Relieve us from your stranglehold, O Shu’bah.^[189]

 

Muawiyah ibn Qurrah was thiqah and from amongst the intelligent narrators.^[190] He passed away late in the year 113 AH and met a group of Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Despite this, Shu’bah did not hesitate to scrutinise him. It was as if Shu’bah was famous for creating difficulty and scrutiny, so his sheikh said to him, “Relieve us from your stranglehold.”

He would severely scrutinise his sheikh, Qatadah ibn Di’amah al Sadusi, as mentioned previously. He was one of the most prominent scholars in Basrah. He would scrutinise him regarding the issue of his sima’, and he would check his mouth, whether he said ‘haddathana’, ‘‘an’ or ‘haddatha’, to the point that Qatadah would sometimes get angry about that,^[191] but he knew Shu’bah’s position and his criticism. Therefore, sometimes he would ask him about his own Hadith.^[192]

In a famous incident of his investigations, he scrutinised his sheikh, Abu Ishaq al Sabi’i (d. 123 AH), and threatened to omit his Hadith if he did not reveal the name of his sheikh. Abu Ishaq had narrated a hadith, then Shu’bah scrutinised him for the name of the person he heard from, and Abu Ishaq became angry. Shu’bah said:

 

وكان مسعر بن كدام حاضرا فقال لي مسعر أغضبت الشيخ فقلت ما له ليصححن لي هذا الحديث أو لأسقطن حديثه

Mis’ar ibn Kidam was present. Mis’ar said to me, “You have angered the sheikh.”

I said, “What is the matter with him? He must authenticate this Hadith for me or I will omit his Hadith.”^[193]

 

The authentication here is to mention the entire chain of transmission without tadlis. It is a severe threat.

If the situation with Shu’bah’s peers was like this, then for the fear to reach his students was a foregone conclusion. Al Hajjaj ibn Muhammad al Missisi, one of Shu’bah’s students, is reported to have said:

 

رآني شعبة عند الحسن بن دينار أحد الشيوخ الضعفاء ‎‏ فجعلت أتوارى منه فلما أتيته قال لي أما إني قد رأيتك

Shu’bah saw me by al Hassan ibn Dinar, one of the da’if sheikhs.^[194] I began to hide from him. When I came to him, he said to me, “As for me, I saw you.”^[195]

 

He then advised him.

His statement, ‘I began to hide from him’ shows the extent of the monitoring and tracking that Shu’bah used to scrutinise narrators and narrations.

There are other incidents of Shu’bah with other narrators, where he warned others about them and spread their information,^[196] which confirms the idea that ​​the critical authority was frightening for narrators.

It seems that he knew he had become very harsh towards the Muslims in his intimidation of the narrators and his tracking of their ahadith and spreading them among the people, that he described himself as a Haruri i.e. a Khariji. The Haruriyyah are a sect of the Khawarij. It is as if he likened himself to the Khawarij in their extremism.^[197]

The intimidation was not limited to Shu’bah, as reports show that other critics intimidated narrators at the time, such as Sufyan al Thawri^[198] and others.^[199]

However, Shu’bah was famous and well-known for it.

I have mentioned previously that one of the most important outcomes of this intimidation is restricting the spread of lying in the scholarly community, as the scholarly authority was existing, monitoring the paths of narrations and tracking it at the hands of critics. The basis in that religious Muslim community is justice and the fear of lying and disobedience religiously, but if a narrator is bold on lying, then he must—the situation is under the control of scholarly critics—be exposed and defamed in public opinion. Hence the saying of Imam Sufyan al Thawri (d. 161 AH), Shu’bah’s contemporary and companion in the acquisition of knowledge:

 

من‏ كذب في الحديث افتضح

Whoever lies in Hadith will be exposed.^[200]

 

This means that critics will announce that and spread it among the people due to the severity of their tracking of false narrations. In fact, Sufyan’s student, Abu Nuaim al Fadl ibn Dukayn, commented on this statement by saying:

 

وأنا أقول من هم أن يكذب افتضح

I say that whoever intends to lie will be exposed.^[201]

 

In Abu Nuaim’s opinion, the matter resulted in the narrator becoming afraid while thinking about lying, before even doing it. This shows a strong, scholarly control.

For all these great efforts in purifying ahadith, Imam al Shafi’i praised the Muhaddithin highly by saying:

 

لولا المحابر لخطبت الزنادقة على المنابر

Were it not for the inkwells, heretics would have preached from the pulpits.^[202]

 

2. Critics influence by the method and their development in it

These efforts of Shu’bah and the efforts of critics in that era, were clearly fruitful for those who came after them. Two great critics graduated from Shu’bah, filling the scholarly community at that time with critical statements. They were Yahya ibn Sa’id al Qattan (d. 198 AH) and ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi (d. 198 AH). Yahya al Qattan specialised the most regarding Shu’bah. Ibn Rajab described him as the deputy of Shu’bah, the one who succeeded him in this knowledge, and from whom the Imams of this field, such as Ahmed ibn Hanbal, ‘Ali ibn al Madini, Yahya ibn Ma’in, and the like, learnt. Shu’bah would appoint him as a judge over himself.^[203] His student Ahmed ibn Hanbal said about him:

 

ما رأيت أثبت في الحديث من يحيى بن سعيد ولم يكن في زمان يحيى القطان مثله كان تعلم من شعبة

I have not seen anyone firmer in Hadith than Yahya ibn Sa’id. There was no one like Yahya al Qattan during his era. He learned from Shu’bah.^[204]

 

He also said:

 

ما رأيت في هذا الشأن مثل يحيى بن سعيد

I have not seen someone like Yahya ibn Sa’id in this field.^[205]

 

He accompanied Shu’bah for a long time. He was asked:

 

كم اختلفت إلى شعبة قال عشرين سنة

“How long have you been with Shu’bah?”

He said, “Twenty years.”^[206]

 

The features of his critical approach are similar to the features of Shu’bah’s critical approach. It was a method based on historical tools, not religious tools, as he was not deceived by the narrator’s piety or his scholarly and religious standing. He criticised his sheikh Shu’bah^[207] and he criticised the sheikh of Makkah, Ibn Jurayj, in some of his ahadith.^[208] He would interrogate narrators through their narrations, test them in this way,^[209] and see their susceptibility to error and lying.^[210] He would judge a narrator through his reports. He judged some narrators to be da’if because they narrated only one objectionable hadith.^[211]

He followed his sheikh in his objective criticism without favouritism or prejudice towards those who differed in thought and belief. He made tawthiq of some Qadariyyah and Murji’ah, and stated regarding them that the narrator’s Hadith cannot be rejected due to an opinion in which he was mistaken.^[212] He made tawthiq of some Shia, such as Fitr ibn Khalifah.^[213]

He passed this approach to his students, such as Yahya ibn Ma’in and Ahmed ibn Hanbal. They also criticised him in some of his narrations, even though they were few. Imam Ahmed said:

 

ما رأيت أحدا أقل‎ خطأ من يحيى بن سعيد ولقد أخطأ في أحاديث ثم قال ومن يعرى من الخطأ‎ والتصحيف

I have not seen anyone make fewer mistakes than Yahya ibn Sa’id. He made mistakes in some ahadith. He then said: Who is immune to errors and misrepresentations?^[214]

 

In fact, he criticised him in some of his rulings on the narrators. He said:

 

ذكر‏ عند يحيى بن سعيد عقيل وإبراهيم بن سعد فجعل كأنه يضعفهما يقول عقيل وإبراهيم بن سعد عقيل وإبراهيم بن سعد قال أبي وأيش ينفع هذا هؤلاء ثقات لم يخبرهما يحيى

‘Aqil and Ibrahim ibn Sa’d were mentioned to Yahya ibn Sa’id. He made it as if he was making tad’if of them, saying, “‘Aqil and Ibrahim ibn Sa’d; ‘Aqil and Ibrahim ibn Sa’d.”

My father said, “What is the benefit of this? These are thiqah narrators. Yahya did not know them.”^[215]

 

Yahya ibn Ma’in mentioned some of his mistakes as well.^[216]

 

NEXT⇒ Chapter 4 – From the Atba’ al Tabi’in to the Authors of the Famous Books – Features of the transition from the second to the third century

---

^[1]  Ahmed ibn Hanbal: al ‘Ilal, 2/539 (3557).

^[2]  Ibn Rajab: Sharh al ‘Ilal, 1/448.

^[3]  Ibn Hibban: al Thiqat, 6/446.

^[4]  Shu’bah—who is a Wasiti Basri—heard from thirty sheikhs in Kufah, whom Sufyan al Thawri did not hear from in Kufah, which shows an early start to seek knowledge. (Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, ‎4/369; Ibn Hani’: al Masa’il, pg. 465; al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 7/210). See their enumeration by Imam Ahmed: al ‘Ilal, 1/472 (1092); al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 7/213-214. Imam Ahmed said:

شعبة‏ أكبر من سفيان بعشر سنين

Shu’bah is ten years elder than Sufyan. (Al ‘Ilal, ‎2/348, 2540).

^[5]  See some of his narrations by al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 7/207.

^[6]  When al Bukhari wrote the biography of Shu’bah in al Tarikh al Kabir, ‎4/244-245, he sufficed on mentioning these two sheikhs amongst his sheikhs, and perhaps that was to show his early class in Sima’.

^[7]  Abu Nuaim: Hilyat al Auliya’, 7/152; al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 45. I derived this valuable idea from the two honourable professors: Dr. Halil Ibrahim Turhan in his book printed in Turkish on the emergence of criticism in the field of narrators and its development (Halil Ibrahim Turhan: Rical Tenkidinin Doğuşu and Gelişimi, pg. 136) and Dr. Bekir Kuzudişli in his book published in Turkish, The History of Hadith (Bekir Kuzudişli: Hadis Tarihi, pg. 104).

^[8]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 45.

^[9]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/176.

^[10]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/176.

^[11]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/203.

^[12]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/203.

^[13]  ‘Abdullah ibn Imam Ahmed said:

جاء أبو تراب النخشبي إلى أبي فجعل أبي يقول فلان‎ ضعيف فلان ثقة فقال أبو تراب يا شيخ لا تغتب العلماء فالتفت أبي إليه فقال له ويحك هذا نصيحة ليس هذا غيبة

Abu Turab al Nakhshabi came to my father, and my father started saying, “So-and-so is weak, so-and-so is trustworthy.”

Abu Turab said, “O Sheikh, do not backbite scholars.”

So my father turned to him and said, “Woe to you, this is advice, not backbiting.” (Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 45).

^[14]  Refer to my previously mentioned study under the title: Madinat Riwayah La Madinat Fiqh wa ‘Amal Mutawarith.

^[15]  It is necessary to study Ayub al Sakhtiyani’s criticism extensively as there are some statements of his that indicate distinguished early Hadith criticism, such as his criticism of the ahadith of his companion Hisham ibn Hassan for narrating some ahadith as marfu’, and for his additions to the words in some. Refer to them in al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 30/189.

See an example of his investigation into the chains of transmission by al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 2/75. Refer to the statement by Malik praising him for choosing and screening the sheikhs, and comparing him to other people of Iraq by Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/189-191, in addition to Imam Muslim’s selection of his statements in criticism of some narrators in the introduction of his Sahih, 1/21.

^[16]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 1/357.

^[17]  Al Ramahurmuzi: al Muhaddith al Fasil, pg. 316; al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Jami’, 2/257.

^[18]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 2/31–32; al Ramahurmuzi: al Muhaddith al Fasil, pg. 410. This is the oldest definition of a Matruk Hadith by the former scholars.

^[19]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/218.

^[20]  Ibn Hibban: al Majruhin, pg. 27.

^[21]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 355–356.

^[22]  Ibn Hajar states in Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 1/91:

ذكر أبو موسى المديني أنه توفي سنة ‎٧‏ أو ‎٢٨‏ والظاهر أنه خطأ وكأنه أراد وثلاثين وروينا في الجزء الثاني من حديث الفاكهي عن ابن أبي مسرة أنه سمع يعقوب بن إسحاق بن بنت حميد الطويل يقول مات أبان بن أبي عياش في أول رجب سنة ‎ ١٣٨‏ وكذا ذكره القراب في تاريخه‏ وقال الذهبي في الميزان بقي‏ إلى بعد الأربعين ومئة‏ ولا يخفى ما فيه

Abu Musa al Madini mentioned that he passed away in the year 7 or 28. It is obvious that he was wrong, as if he meant thirty (i.e., 38). We narrated in the second part from the Hadith of al Fakihi — from Ibn Abi Masarrah that he heard Yaqub ibn Ishaq ibn Bint Humaid al Tawil say, “Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash passed away on the first of Rajab in the year 138 AH.” Al Qarrab also mentioned him in his Tarikh. Al Dhahabi said in al Mizan, “He lived until after 140 AH.” The objection in this is obvious.

^[23]  Ibn Hibban said this in al Majruhin, 1/96.

^[24]  Malik ibn Dinar said about him:

أبان بن أبي عياش طاوس القراء‏ وقال أيوب ما زلنا نعرفه بالخير منذ دهر

Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash is the peacock of the Qur’an reciters. Ayub said, “We have known him for goodness for ages.” (Ibn Hajar: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 1/99.)

^[25]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/177; Ahmed ibn Hanbal: al ‘Ilal, 2/536 (3541).

^[26]  Al Hassan was a judge in Baghdad for Abu Jafar al Mansur who later appointed him as a tutor for his son al Mahdi, as stated by al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 8/323. His relationship with the political authority was strong, and yet this did not prevent Shu’bah from speaking against them, which confirms what I concluded in another study that the political authority had no influence on the movement, spread, and criticism of Hadith in Islamic countries.

^[27]  Its details will come later in the means of ruling on the narrator.

^[28]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/138.

^[29]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/137; al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 8/326.

^[30]  Some texts of critic Imams from the class of Shu’bah’s students have been reported about the importance of Talqin.

Yahya al Qattan said:

إذا‏ كان الشيخ يثبت على شيء واحد خطأ كان أو صوابا فلا بأس به وإذا كان الشيخ كل شيء يقال له يقول فليس بشيء

If the sheikh stays firm on one thing, whether it is right or wrong, then there is nothing wrong with him. If the sheikh accepts everything he is told, then he is worthless. (Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/260.)

Al Humaidi states:

وكذلك من لقن فتلقن – أي قبل التلقين – يرد حديثه الذي لقن فيه وأخذ عنه ما أتقن حفظه إذا علم أن ذلك التلقين حادث في حفظه لا يعرف به قديما فأما من عرف به قديما في جميع حديثه فلا يقبل حديثه ولا يؤمن أن يكون ما حفظ مما لقن

Likewise, whoever was give talqin and he took the talqin—i.e. accepted the talqin—his Hadith in which he was made talqin of, will be rejected and what is certain to be from his memory will be taken from him. This is if it is known that the talqin is new in his memorisation and he was not known for it in the past. As for the one who is known for it in the past in all of his Hadith, his Hadith is not accepted, as it is not certain that what he memorised was from what he was made talqin of. (Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 2/34.)

^[31]  Ibn Hajar: al Nukat ‘ala Ibn al Salah, 2/866.

^[32]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/134; al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 1/40; al Khatib: al Jami’, 1/136.

^[33]  Al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 1/40; al Khatib: al Jami’, 1/136.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar states in al Nukat, 2/866:

وقد أنكر بعضهم على شعبة ذلك لما يترتب عليه من تغليط من يمتحن فقد يستمر على روايته لظنه أنه صواب وقد يسمعه من لا خبرة له فيرويه ظنا منه أنه صواب لكن مصلحته أكثر من مفسدته

Some have denounced Shu’bah for this because it entails misleading the one who was tested. He may continue with his narration because he thinks it is correct, and someone who has no information about it may hear it and narrate it thinking that it is correct. However, its benefit is greater than its harm.

Imam al ‘Iraqi states in al Tabsirah, 1/321, regarding the types of maqlub Hadith:

هذا هو القسم الثاني من قسمي المقلوب وهو أن يؤخذ إسناد متن فيجعل على متن آخر ومتن هذا فيجعل بإسناد آخر وهذا قد يقصد به أيضا الإغراب فيكون ذلك كالوضع وقد يفعل اختبارا لحفظ المحدث وهذا يفعله أهل الحديث كثيرا وفي جوازه نظر إلا أنه إذا فعله أهل الحديث لا يستقر حديثا وإنما يقصد اختبار حفظ المحدث بذلك أو اختباره هل يقبل التلقين أم لا وممن فعل ذلك شعبة وحماد بن سلمة

This is the second type of maqlub hadith, in which the chain of transmission of one text is taken and placed on another text, and one text is taken and narrated with another chain of transmission. This may also be done to cause strangeness. Thus, this is like fabrication. Sometimes, it may be used as a test for the memorisation of the Muhaddith. Scholars of Hadith do this frequently. Its permissibility is debatable, except that if the scholars of Hadith do it, it does not remain a Hadith, but rather it is intended to test the memorisation of the Muhaddith by doing so, or to test whether he accepts talqin or not? Among those who did this were Shu’bah and Hammad ibn Salamah.

There is a need to study the beginning of talqin of narrators and the era in which it spread. I found a quote by Qatadah that shows that the matter is ancient, which is his saying:

إذا سرك أن يكذب صاحبك فلقنه

If you wish to falsify your friend, then make talqin to him. (Ibn al Ja’d: al Musnad, pg. 161.)

What is reported of people’s talqin of Simak ibn Harb and Shu’bah’s abstention from that is only to make the Hadith marfu’, not to test him. (Al Fasawi: al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 3/209; al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 2/178.)

^[34]  Al Fasawi: al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 3/209; al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 2/187.

^[35]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/217.

^[36]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 113.

^[37]  Abu Dawood al Tayalisi: al Musnad, Hadith: 776. Perhaps this is the only hadith that Shu’bah heard from Talhah.

Imam Ahmed said:

ولم يسمع شعبة من طلحة بن مصرف إلا حديثا واحدا من منح بمنيحة

Shu’bah did not hear from Talhah ibn Musarrif except one hadith, i.e. (the hadith) whoever gifts a camel… (Al ‘Ilal, 2/176 (1917).)

^[38]  Al Bukhari mentioned in al Tarikh al Kabir, 4/346-347, two views regarding his death, i.e. 110 AH and 112 AH. Al Mizzi mentioned in Tahdhib al Kamal, 13/437, two views also, i.e. 112 AH and 113 AH.

^[39]  Among the reports in praise of him is Shu’bah’s statement:

كنا في جنازة طلحة فقال أبو معشر وأثنى عليه ما ترك بعده مثله

We were at Talhah’s funeral, and Abu Ma’shar said—praising him—that he had never left anyone like him after him. (Ibn al Ja’d: al Musnad, pg. 402.)

^[40]  Ibn Abi Hatim said in al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, ‎1/151:

فقد دل سؤال شعبة لليث ابن أبي سليم عن اجتماع هؤلاء الثلاثة له في مسألة كالمنكر عليه

Shu’bah’s question to Layth ibn Abi Sulaim regarding these three men’s agreement on a matter indicates to his disapproval of it.

^[41]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, ‎1/151. Another narration by al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 4/15, states:

أين اجتمع لك عطاء وطاوس ومجاهد فقال ليث إذ أبوك يضرب بالخف ليلة عرسه قال قبيصة فقال رجل كان جالسا لسفيان فما زال شعبة متقيا لليث من يومئذ

Where did ‘Ata’, Tawus, and Mujahid meet together?

Layth replied, “When your father hit the sandals on his wedding night.”

Qabisah states that a man who was sitting with Sufyan said, “Shu’bah has continued to be wary of Layth since that day.”

I do not understand the metaphor in his saying ‘your father’s sandal’.

^[42]  Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 6/349; Ibn Rajab: Sharh al ‘Ilal, 2/814.

^[43]  Abu ‘Awanah tested Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash. In fact, it seems that he was he was the first to test him. ‘Affan said:

أول من أهلك أبان ابن أبي عياش أبو عوانة أنه جمع حديث الحسن عامته من البصرة فجاء به إلى أبان قال فقرأء عليه

The first to destroy Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash was Abu ‘Awanah. He collected the ahadith of al Hassan from Basrah and brought it to Aban, and he (Aban) read them to him.

Similarly, Abu ‘Awanah narrates:

ما بلغني حديث عن الحسن إلا أتيت أبان بن أبي عياش فقرأه عليّ

No hadith reached me from al Hassan except that I came to Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash and he read it to me.

He also states:

لما مات الحسن اشتهيت كلامه فجمعته من أصحاب الحسن فأتيت أبان بن أبي عياش فقرأه علي عن الحسن فلا أستحل أن أروي عنه

When al Hassan passed away, I developed a desire for his narrations. Therefore, I collected them from al Hassan’s students. Then I came to Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash and he read them to me from al Hassan. I do not deem it permissible for me to narrate from him.

Refer to these narrations in al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 1/454; al ‘Uqayli, al Du’afa’, 1/40. The last text shows that the testing was found early in that century, as al Hassan passed away in 110 AH, so it is as if it was found in the first quarter. Hammad ibn Salamah tested the memory of Thabit al Bunani, an old student of Anas ibn Malik radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He found Thabit memorising the Hadith well, after he had turned them around. Hammad states:

كنت أسمع أن القصاص لا يحفظون الحديث فكنت أقلب الأحاديث على ثابت أجعل أنسا لابن أبي ليلى وبالعكس أشوشها عليه فيجيء بها على الاستواء

I used to hear that storytellers do not memorise Hadith. Therefore, I would alter the ahadith by Thabit, assigning Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu to Ibn Abi Layla, and vice versa, to confuse him with it. He would mention them correctly. (Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 2/449; al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 5/222.)

^[44]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 2/32; al Ramahurmuzi: al Muhaddith al Fasil, pg. 410.

^[45]  Al Bardha’i: Su’alatuhu li Abi Zur’ah, pg. 201; al Ramahurmuzi: al Muhaddith al Fasil, pg. 419.

^[46]  Al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 2/179; al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 1/297. Al ‘Uqayli’s wording is:

وأنا أفرقه

And I differentiate it.

^[47]  See his biography by Ibn Hajar: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 5/42.

^[48]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/145; al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 14/167. Shu’bah’s statement is:

عاصم أحب إلي من قتادة في أبي عثمان يعني النهدي لأنه أحفظهم

‘Asim is more beloved to me than Qatadah in narrating from Abu ‘Uthman—i.e. al Nahdi—because he was a better Hafiz of the two.

^[49]  Ibn Abi Khaythamah: al Tarikh al Kabir, 1/339; Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/156.

^[50]  There was a scholarly rivalry between Qatadah and Yahya ibn Abi Kathir, therefore each one of them spoke against the other and the scholars did not pay attention to it. This harsh talk between them shows that these great men were critic Imams, but they are normal human beings also. Among those statements is the statement of Yahya ibn Abi Kathir:

لا‏ يزال أهل البصرة بشر ما أبقى الله فيهم قتادة

The people of Basrah will continue to be in evil as long as Allah keeps Qatadah among them.

Similarly, Qatadah’s statement about Yahya:

متى كان العلم في السماكين

When was knowledge among the fishermen?

Abu Salamah states:

يعرض بيحيى بن أبي كثير يعني كان أهل بيته سماكين

He is referring to Yahya ibn Abi Kathir, i.e., his family were fishermen.

(Ibn al Ja’d: al Musnad, pg. 165.)

^[51]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh, 1/137; al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 1/238–239.

^[52]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 8/326; Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/137.

^[53]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/137; al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 8/326.

^[54]  Al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 2/303; Ibn Hajar: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 2/305.

^[55]  Ahmed: al ‘Ilal, 1/156 (68); Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/67- 68. He mentioned several narrations.

^[56]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/76.

^[57]  Hammad ibn Salamah states:

حدثنا‏ قتادة عن عمرو بن دينار بحديث عبد الملك بن مروان في الوصية قال حماد فسألت عنه عمرو بن دينار فقلب معناه غير ما قال قتادة فقلت له إن قتادة حدثنا عنك بكذا وكذا قال إني وهمت يوم حدثت به قتادة

Qatadah narrated to us from ‘Amr ibn Dinar the hadith of ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan regarding the will. Hammad says, “So I asked ‘Amr ibn Dinar about that hadith, and he changed its meaning to other than what Qatadah told me. Therefore, I said to him, ‘Qatadah narrated to us such-and-such from you.’

He said, ‘I erred the day I narrated it to Qatadah.’” (Ibn al Ja’d: al Musnad, pg. 160.)

^[58]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/139. It is reported in one narration that when he heard this hadith, he said:

أخاف الله أن أحدث به

I fear Allah to narrate it.

^[59]  Sunan al Tirmidhi, chapters on Zakat from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, chapter for whom Zakat is permissible, Hadith: 650; Sunan al Nasa’i, book on Zakat, chapter on the threshold of wealth, Hadith: 259; Sunan Abi Dawood, book on Zakat, chapter on who is given from charity and the threshold of wealth, Hadith: 1626 and others. Al Daraqutni agreed with Shu’bah. Al Barqani narrates in Su’alat, pg. 24 (100):

سألته عن حكيم بن جبير فقال كوفي يترك هو الذي روى لا تحل الصدقة لمن له خمسون درهما

I asked him about Hakim ibn Jubayr and he said, “He is from Kufah. He should be discarded. He is the one who narrated (the hadith) that it is not permissible for someone who has fifty dirhams to accept charity.”

Shu’bah’s student, Yahya ibn Sa’id al Qattan, and others disagreed with him regarding this narrator. It is reported in al Tirmidhi: al ‘Ilal al Saghir, 6/254:

قال علي ولم ير يحيى بحديثه بأسا

‘Ali said, “Yahya did not see anything wrong in his Hadith.”

^[60]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 3/260. See his biography by al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 7/165–169.

^[61]  Al Tirmidhi: al ‘Ilal al Kabir, pg. 216.

^[62]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 5/367.

^[63]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi mentioned in his book al Kifayah, 2/101, that Ibrahim al Nakha’i said:

كانوا‏ يكرهون إذا اجتمعوا أن يخرج الرجل أحسن حديثه أو أحسن ما عنده وعلق عليه الخطيب بقوله عنى‏ إبراهيم بالأحسن الغريب لأن الغريب غير المألوف يستحسن أكثر من المشهور المعروف وأصحاب الحديث يعبرون عن المناكير بهذه العبارة ولهذا قال شعبة بن الحجاج من حسنها فررت

When they gathered, they would dislike for a man to bring out the best of his Hadith or the best of what he had. Al Khatib commented on it by saying, “By the best, Ibrahim meant gharib, because a strange narration, which is unfamiliar, is more desirable than the well-known narration. Scholars of Hadith express munkar narrations with this phrase. Hence, Shu’bah ibn al Hajjaj said, ‘I ran from the hassan (narrations).’” (Al Suyuti: Tadrib al Rawi, 3/29.)

^[64]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 5/367; al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 3/32.

^[65]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 5/366–367.

^[66]  Ibn Rajab: Sharh al ‘Ilal, 2/569.

^[67]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/151–152.

^[68]  Al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 2/303.

^[69]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 6/363; 1/149.

^[70]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 15/643.

^[71]  Ibn Hajar: Lisan al Mizan, 8/152-153, which is in the biography of Mundhir ibn Ziyad al Ta’i. After mentioning the incident of Shu’bah, Ibn Hajar said, “I think he is this Mundhir.”

^[72]  Ibn Rajab: Sharh al ‘Ilal, 6/564.

^[73]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/149.

^[74]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/156.

^[75]  Al Ramahurmuzi: al Muhaddith al Fasil, pg. 316; al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Jami’, 2/257.

^[76]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/147.

^[77]  There is a well-known dispute regarding Abu ‘Ubaidah’s hearing from his father, and perhaps the oldest person to have proven his hearing—in general—is Imam al Bukhari in al Tarikh al Kabir, types of agnomens, 2/51–52. See the comment of our teacher Sheikh Muhammad ‘Awwamah on his biography in al Kashif, 1/523–525 (2539), and in his research on Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, 2/173-174, Hadith: 1655.

^[78]  Al Fasawi: al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 2/781.

^[79]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/147; al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 3/229, 4/380; Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 8/112-113, 10/707.

^[80]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 111.

^[81]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 11o.

^[82]  Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 7/223.

^[83]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 111.

^[84]  Al San’ani: Tawdih al Afkar, 2/96.

^[85]  Al Bukhari narrated his Hadith in al Mutaba’at, al Sahih, ‎7/94; Ahmed narrated it in the Musnad from two chains from Shu’bah, so it is proven according him, al Musnad, Hadith: 3133, 5018; al Nasa’i: al Sunan al Sughra, Hadith: 4454; Ibn Hibban: al Sahih, Hadith: 5617.

^[86]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 9/67.

^[87]  Al Nasa’i: al Sunan al Sughra, Hadith: 1973; al Sunan al Kubra, Hadith: 2112; Ibn Hibban: al Sahih, Hadith: 3096, 3097.

^[88]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 112.

^[89]  Al Khatib included a chapter in al Kifayah, pg. 110-113, on these examples, saying: “Chapter mentioning some of the reports of those who inquired about jarh and mentioned that which does not remove integrity.”

^[90] Al Sakhawi: Fath al Mughith. 2/24-28.

^[91]  Ibn al Ja’d: al Musnad, pg. 24; Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/152.

^[92]  Ibn al Ja’d: al Musnad, pg. 162.

^[93]  Ibn al Ja’d: al Musnad, pg. 162.

^[94]  Al Bayhaqi: Ma’rifat al Sunan, 1/166 -165.

^[95]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/152.

^[96]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/152.

^[97]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/152.

^[98]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/150.

^[99]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/154.

^[100]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/148-149; al Ramahurmuzi: al Muhaddith al Fasil, pg. 313; Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 6/167-168; Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: al Tamhid, 1/48-50; al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 400-401. The narrator of the incident, Nasr ibn Hammad is objectionable; however, the incident is proven from Shu’bah through another chain that does not have this complete detail. One of them is the chain of Abu Dawood al Tayalisi from Shu’bah mentioned by Ibn ‘Abdul Barr in al Tamhid, 1/50. It does not contain this long journey. Ibn ‘Abdul Barr said regarding the incident of Nasr ibn Hammad:

وقد روي هذا المعنى من وجوه عن شعبة ولذلك ذكرته عن نصر بن حماد الوراق لأن نصر بن حماد الوراق يروي عن شعبة مناكير تركوه وقد رواه الطيالسي عن شعبة

This meaning was narrated in several ways from Shu’bah; hence, I mentioned it from Nasr ibn Hammad al Warraq, because Nasr ibn Hammad al Warraq narrates munkar narrations from Shu’bah. Scholars have abandoned him. Al Tayalisi narrated it from Shu’bah.

Another print of al Tamhid has it as:

هذا مليح حسن لولا أنه عن حماد الوراق وليس بشيء ولكن قد روي نحوه…

This is pleasing and good, had it not been from Hammad al Warraq and he is nothing; however, something similar to it has been narrated…

Refer to some of the narrations by Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 19/217.

^[101]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/137.

^[102]  Ahmed ibn Hanbal: al ‘Ilal, the narration of al Maymuni, pg. 190 (127); al Dhahabi mentioned it in Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 5/233, in the biography of Hammad ibn Abi Sulaiman:

قال معمر قلت لحماد كنت رأسا وكنت إماما في أصحابك فخالفتهم فصرت تابعا قال إني أن أكون تابعا في الحق خير من أن أكون رأسا في الباطل قلت الذهبي يشير معمر إلى أنه تحول مرجئا إرجاء الفقهاء وهو أنهم لا يعدون الصلاة والزكاة من الإيمان ويقولون الإيمان إقرار باللسان ويقين في القلب والنزاع على هذا لفظي إن شاء الله وإنما غلو الإرجاء من قال لا يضر مع التوحيد ترك الفرائض نسأل الله العافية

Ma’mar states al Kamil, “I said to Hammad, “You were the leader and an imam among your companions, but you disagreed with them and became a follower.”

He said, “It is better for me to be a follower in the truth than to be a leader in falsehood.

I—al Dhahabi—say that Ma’mar is indicating that he became a Murji’i in a Fiqhi sense, which is that they do not consider Salah and Zakat to be part of Iman (faith). They say that Iman is affirmation on the tongue and belief in the heart. The dispute over this is verbal, Allah willing. The extremist Murji’i is the one who says that with Tawhid, there is no harm in leaving out obligatory acts. We ask Allah for protection.

^[103]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/148.

^[104]  See his tawthiq by Imam Ahmed: al ‘Ilal, 3/214 (4924); Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 2/49. See the biography of Jabir al Ju’fi and the discussion concerning him in Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 3/23 onwards. Al Dhahabi said in his biography in al Kashif, 1/288 ‎(739): ‎

من‏ أكبر علماء الشيعة وثقه شعبة فشذ وتركه الحفاظ

He was one of the senior Shia scholars. Shu’bah made his tawthiq anomalously. Other Huffaz abandoned him.

^[105]  Imam Ahmed was asked regarding Aban ibn Taghlib, and he said:

أبان ثقة كان شعبة يحدث عنه

Aban is thiqah. Shu’bah would narrate from him. (Ahmed ibn Hanbal: al ‘Ilal, 3/284 (2560.)

See Ibn Sa’d’s tawthiq of him and Shu’bah’s narration from him in Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 6/360. See the biography of Aban by al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 6/2.

^[106]  Mughlata’i quoted it in Ikmal Tahdhib al Kamal, 1/158, from Abu Nuaim al Asbahani in a book in which his Musnad was collected from Ibn ‘Ajlan.

^[107]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 6/53; Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 8/421-424; al Barqani: Su’alatuhu li al Daraqutni, pg. 46 (316).

^[108]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, ‎7/457. See the incident and the Shi’ism of Abu Harun by Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: al Istighna’, ‎2/978, and by Ibn Hajar: al Tahdhib, ‎7/413.

^[109]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/137. Ibn Abi Hatim said:

كان الغالب عليه الفقه وإنه لم يرزق حفظ الآثار

Fiqh was dominant in him, and he was not blessed with memorising narrations.

^[110]  See for example Hadith: 317, 806, 2806, 4343, 4365, 5131, 624, 6865, and 7367.

^[111]  Examples of it have passed. See Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/67; al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 15/643.

^[112]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/154.

^[113]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/154.

^[114]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Jami’, 1/238.

^[115]  Al Tirmidhi: al ‘Ilal al Saghir, 6/245; Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/216.

^[116]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/148.

^[117]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/147.

^[118]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/148.

^[119]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, narration of Ibn Muhriz, 2/211 (703).

^[120]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/154.

^[121]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/221.

^[122]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/155.

^[123]  Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 7/228.

^[124]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/149.

^[125]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/155.

^[126]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/63, 4/222.

^[127]  Al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 27/466; al Ramahurmuzi: al Muhaddith al Fasil, pg. 395.

^[128]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/169; Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/151.

^[129]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Jami’, 2/142; al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 7/226.

^[130]  Al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 2/118.

^[131]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 4/86; Ibn Hajar: Lisan al Mizan, 4/30.

^[132]  Ibn Hibban: al Thiqat, 8/248.

^[133]  Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 2/359.

^[134]  See his biography by al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 3/181–193.

^[135]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, 3/364 (1771).

^[136]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, 4/75 (3216).

^[137]  Ibn Hani’: Su’alatuhu, pg. 479 (2163).

^[138]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, narration of Ibn Muhriz, 1/55 (857).

^[139]  Ibn Hani’: Su’alatuhu, pg. 506 (2367).

^[140]  Ahmed ibn Hanbal: al ‘Ilal, al Marrudhi’s narration, pg. 44 (37).

^[141]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, narration of Ibn Muhriz, ‎1/117 (569).

^[142]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 10/259.

^[143]  Al Bayhaqi: al Madkhal, 2/840; al Khatib al Baghdadi: Taqyid al ‘Ilm, pg. 78.

^[144]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/174; al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Jami’, 1/229.

^[145]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, 3/170 (751); al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 13/502; Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 8/181. ‘Asim is da’if, as is clear from his biography in Tahdhib al Kamal.

^[146]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/232.

He commented on it by saying:

هذه غاية المنزلة إذ اختاره شعبة من بين أهل العلم ثم بلغ من دالته بنفسه وصلابته في دينه أن قضى على شعبة

This is the ultimate status, since Shu’bah chose him from among the people of knowledge. Then he attained a level of self-guidance and strength in his din that he passed a verdict against Shu’bah.

^[147]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al ‘Ilal, 3/212-214 (807), 3/256 (843); al Daraqutni: al ‘Ilal, 15/147-148 (3906).

^[148]  Al Juzajani: Ahwal al Rijal, pg. 126 (208); al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 4/161; Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 9/313-314.

^[149]  Al Barqani: Su’alatuhu li al Daraqutni, pg. 46 (316).

^[150]  Refer to my research al Naqd al Ma’kus: Dirasah fi Tad’if al Nuqqad Ba’d al Ruwat li Ajl Hadith Wahid (A study of the critics’ tad’if of some narrators due to single hadith).

^[151]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/139. According to another narration, he said when he heard this hadith:

أخاف الله أن أحدث به

I fear Allah that I should narrate it.

^[152]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 3/260. See his biography by al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 7/165–169.

^[153]  Al Tirmidhi: al ‘Ilal al Kabir, pg. 216.

^[154]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 5/367; al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 3/32.

^[155]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/149, 6/363.

^[156]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 7/455; al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 3/314.

^[157]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 2/31 – 31; al Ramahurmuzi: al Muhaddith al Fasil, pg. 410.

^[158]  Al Ramahurmuzi: al Muhaddith al Fasil, pg. 316; al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Jami’, 316.

^[159]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/177; Ahmed ibn Hanbal: al ‘Ilal, 2/536 (3541).

^[160]  Abu Nuaim: Hilyat al Auliya’, 7/150.

^[161]  Ibn Hibban: al Majruhin, 1/96; al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 7/461.

^[162]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/134; al Bardha’i: Su’alatuhu li Abi Zur’ah, pg. 199.

^[163]  Al Bardha’i: Su’alatuhu li Abi Zur’ah, pg. 200.

^[164]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/134.

^[165]  Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 7/222.

^[166]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/304.

^[167]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/148.

^[168]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/138.

^[169]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/137; al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 8/326.

^[170]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 3/421.

^[171]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/138, 3/28; al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 1/237.

^[172]  Al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 2/303; al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 8/326.

^[173]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 8/327.

^[174]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 8/328.

^[175]  Mughlata’i: al Tarajim al Saqitah Min Ikmal Tahdhib al Kamal, pg. 102–103. Al Hakim commented on it saying:

هذا كلام المشايخ الذين لا يعرفون الجرح والتعديل فوالله إن شعبة كان على الحق‎ في جرحه الحسن والحق معه وشعبة إمام مقدم لا يسقط بكلام أحد من الناس وهذا لا‎ ‏أعرف له راويا عن يزيد غير إيراهيم بن عبد الله الرباطي ويقال الحمال

These are statements of sheikhs who do not know much about Jarh and Ta’dil. By Allah, Shu’bah was right in his criticism of al Hassan, and the truth is with him. Shu’bah is the foremost Imam who cannot be discarded by anyone’s statements. I do not know of any narrator who narrates from Yazid besides Ibrahim ibn ‘Abdullah al Ribati, who was called al Hammal.

^[176]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 8/328.

^[177]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 8/328.

^[178]  See an important incident between al Qadi Abu Yusuf—the student of Abu Hanifah—and Abu al Walid al Tayalisi—Shu’bah’s student—in the council of Khalifah Harun al Rashid with regards to Shu’bah’s stance on al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah in al Dhahabi: Tarikh al Islam, 4/1023–1024.

^[179]  Most of the critics agreed with Shu’bah in criticising him. Perhaps one of the important statements about it is what was narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ali ibn al Madini, who said:

سمعت أبي يقول وذكر حسن بن عمارة ما أحتاج إلى شعبة فيه أمر الحسن بن عمارة أبين من ذاك قيل له أكان يغلط فقال أبي كان يغلط أي شيء يغلط وذهب إلى أنه كان يضع الحديث

I heard my father say (when Hassan ibn ‘Umarah was mentioned), “I do not need Shu’bah regarding him. Al Hassan ibn ‘Umarah’s matter is clearer than that.”

Someone said to him, “Would he make mistakes?”

My father said, “Making mistakes? What is making mistake?”

He believed that he was fabricating Hadith.

Ibn Ma’in said:

ليس حديثه بشيء‏

His Hadith is worthless.

 Ahmed said:

متروك‏ الحديث

Suspected of forgery in Hadith.

(Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 8/328-329.)

^[180] Al ‘Ijli: al Thiqat, 1/312 (337).

^[181]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al ‘Ilal, 4/45. Refer to 2/194 where Abu Hatim states regarding a hadith that Abu ‘Awanah narrated:

ولا يشبه هذا الحديث حديث الحكم

This hadith does not resemble the hadith of al Hakam.

^[182]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 9/40.

^[183]  Yahya ibn Sa’id said:

أبو عوانة من كتابه أحب إلي من شعبة من حفظه

Abu ‘Awanah (narrating) from his book is more beloved to me than Shu’bah (narrating) from his memory. (Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 15/641; al Dhahabi: Tadhkirat al Huffaz, 1/174.)

^[184]  Shu’bah would encourage his student al Hajjaj ibn Muhammad to follow Abu ‘Awanah and say:

الزم‏ أبا عوانة

Stick to Abu ‘Awanah. (Al Fasawi: al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, ‎2/17.)

^[185]  Abu Dawood narrates—in the narration of Ibn al ‘Abd:

قال أبو عوانة يوما حدثنا مالك بن عرفطة عن عبد خير فقال له عمرو الأعصف رحمك الله يا أبا عوانة هذا خالد بن علقمة ولكن شعبة مخطئ فيه فقال أبو عوانة هو في كتابي خالد ابن علقمة ولكن قال شعبة هو مالك بن عرفطة

Abu ‘Awanah said one day, “Malik ibn ‘Urfutah narrated to us from ‘Abd Khayr.”

‘Amr al A’saf said to him, “May Allah have mercy on you, O Abu ‘Awanah. This is Khalid ibn ‘Alqamah, but Shu’bah erred about him.”

Then Abu ‘Awanah said, “In my book, it is Khalid ibn ‘Alqamah; however, Shu’bah said he is Malik ibn ‘Urfutah.” (Al Mizzi: Tuhfat al Ashraf, 7/417.)

^[186]  Ibn Hani’: Su’alathu li al Imam Ahmed, pg. 505 (2366).

^[187]  Abu Hatim’s expression is:

وتلقن ما قال شعبة فلم يجسر أن يخالفه

He accepted Shu’bah’s talqin and did not dare to contradict him. (Al ‘Ilal, 4/455.)

^[188]  Ibn ‘Adi, al Kamil, 5/326. The text is transmitted from Ahmed and Yahya ibn Ma’in. Abu ‘Awanah’s following of Shu’bah was repeated in another error regarding a name of a Companion. Ibn Hajar said in Fath al Bari, 2/149:

قوله يقال‏ له مالك بن بحينة هكذا يقول شعبة في هذا الصحابي وتابعه على ذلك أبو عوانة وحماد بن سلمة وحكم الحفاظ يحيى بن معين وأحمد والبخاري ومسلم والنسائي والإسماعيلي وابن الشرقي والدارقطني وأبو مسعود وآخرون عليهم بالوهم فيه من موضعين أحدهما أن بحينة والدة عبد الله لا مالك وثانيهما أن الصحبة والرواية لعبد الله لا لمالك

His statement ‘he is called Malik ibn Buhaynah’, this is what Shu’bah says concerning this Companion. Abu ‘Awanah and Hammad ibn Salamah followed him on that. Other Huffaz like Yahya ibn Ma’in, Ahmed, al Bukhari, Muslim, al Nasa’i, al Ismaili, Ibn al Sharqi, al Daraqutni, Abu Mas’ud, etc., ruled that they have erred in two instances. Firstly, Buhaynah is ‘Abdullah’s mother, not Malik’s, and secondly, the Companionship and narration is ‘Abdullah’s, not Malik’s.

The eminent scholar Hushaym ibn Bashir sometimes followed Shu’bah as well. He followed him in some of his mistakes. Imam Ahmed said regarding a hadith:

أرى الصواب ما قال حماد وأبو عوانة وسفيان وكان الخطأ عند ما قال هشيم وشعبة وقال هشيم كان يتابع شعبة

I believe what Hammad, Abu ‘Awanah, and Sufyan said is correct, and what Hushaym and Shu’bah said was wrong. Hushaym would follow Shu’bah. (Ibn Qudamah: al Muntakhab min ‘Ilal al Khallal, pg. 228 (216).)

^[189]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/169.

^[190]  Ibn Hajar: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 10/217.

^[191]  Ibn al Ja’d: al Musnad, pg. 159.

^[192]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 4/369.

^[193]  Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/148-149; al Ramahurmuzi: al Muhaddith al Fasil, pg. 313; Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 6/168; Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: al Tamhid, 1/48-50; al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 400-401. This has been discussed extensively before.

^[194]  See his biography by al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 1/222.

^[195]  Al Fasawi: al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 2/17; al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 1/222.

^[196]  See some incidents and information in Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/50–151.

^[197]  Shu’bah said:

لأن أخر من السماء أو من فوق هذا القصر أحب إلي من أن أقول قال الحكم‎ لشيء لم أسمعه منه قال بشر قال شعبة أنا في ذا حروري

For me to fall from the sky or from above this palace is more beloved to me than to say that ‘al Hakam said’ for something I did not hear from him.

Bishr says, “Shu’bah said, ‘Regarding that, I am a Haruri.’” (Abu Nuaim: al Hilyah, 7/151.)

^[198]  Al Khatib narrated in al Kifayah, pg. 139, an amusing incident about ‘Abdur Razzaq al San’ani’s fear of al Thawri when he narrated a hadith to him from Ma’mar. Al Thawri did not know that hadith. ‘Abdur Razzaq states:

فأخذ بتلابيبي فقام إلى معمر… فلما مضى إلى معمر قلت لا أدري لعل معمرا قد نسي هذا الحديث فأكون افتضحت على يدي الثوري قال فجاء حتى وقف عليه فقال يا أبا عروة أخبرك ابن طاوس عن أبيه قال إذا قال الرجل هو يهودي أو نصراني فذكر الحديث قال فقال له معمر نعم وحدثه به فشكوت إلى معمر ما دخلني قال فقال لي معمر إن قدرت ألا تحدث عن رجل حي فافعل

He took hold of my lapels and went to Ma’mar. While he was going to Ma’mar, I said (to myself), “I do not know, perhaps Ma’mar has forgotten this hadith. Then I will be exposed at the hands of al Thawri.”

He came, stopped by him, and said. “O Abu ‘Urwah, did Ibn Tawus inform you from his father that he said, ‘If a man says he is a Jew or a Christian, then…’ (he mentioned the hadith).”

Ma’mar said to him, “Yes.” Then he narrated the hadith to him.

Thereafter, I complained to Ma’mar about what had happened to me. Ma’mar said to me, “If it is possible for you not to narrate from a living person, then do so.”

It is noticeable here that ‘Abdur Razzaq—who is a thiqah Imam—was afraid of being exposed in society.

^[199]  One of the examples of thiqah narrators’ fear of criticism in that era was the fear of Sharik ibn ‘Abdullah al Nakha’i, the judge of Kufah and a thiqah scholar. It is reported that one of the officers of the Khalifah al Mahdi said to him:

أردت أن أسمع منك أحاديث فأجابه شريك قد اختلطت علي أحاديثي وما أدري كيف هي فألح عليه الوزير قائلا حدثنا بما تحفظ ودع ما لا تحفظ فقال شريك أخاف أن تجرح أحاديثي ويضرب بها وجهي

“I wish to hear ahadith from you.”

Sharik answered him, “I have become confused about my ahadith. I do not know how they are.”

The minister insisted on him, saying, “Narrate to us what you remember and leave what you do not remember.”

Sharik said, “I am afraid that my ahadith will be criticised and flung in my face?” (Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, al Duri’s narration, 4/69 (3190))

The learned judge was afraid to narrate some ahadith that he had not memorised, lest he would make mistakes and the critics would criticise him.

^[200]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 117.

^[201]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 117-118.

^[202]  Al Sam’ani: Adab al Imla’ wa al Istimla’, pg. 153; al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 10/70.

^[203]  Ibn Rajab: Sharh al ‘Ilal, 1/464.

^[204]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/247

^[205]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 16/209.

^[206]  Al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 31/334.

^[207]  See his criticism of Shu’bah in Hadith, other than what was mentioned previously in al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 31/334.

^[208]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 257.

^[209]  He once tested some of his prominent sheikhs and one of them sensed it. See al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 31/339; Ibn Hajar: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 11/218–219.

^[210]  He said about Mujalid ibn Sa’id:

لو أردت أن يرفع لي مجالد حديثه كله رفعه فسأله ابن معين ولم يرفع حديثه؟ قال: للضعف

If I wanted, Mujalid would narrate all his ahadith as marfu’ for me.

Ibn Ma’in asked him, “Why does he narrate his Hadith as marfu’?”

He replied, “Because of weakness.” (Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 8/361; al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, ‎27/223.)

He mentioned another narrator stating:

قلت لحرام بن عثمان عبد الرحمن بن جابر ومحمد بن جابر وأبو عتيق هم واحد قال إن شئت جعلتهم عشرة

I asked Haram ibn ‘Uthman, “‘Abdur Rahman ibn Jabir, Muhammad ibn Jabir, and Abu ‘Atiq, are they one?” He said, “If you wish, I can make them ten.” (Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, ‎4/199.)

^[211]  Al Hakim: Su’alathu li al Daraqutni, pg. 187 (285). See the same narration in Mughlata’i: Ikmal Tahdhib al Kamal, 2/57-58, (369). See another narrator in Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, ‎5/65–66, and a third narrator in al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 13/404-405 and al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 20/499.

^[212]  See the biography of ‘Abbad ibn Mansur, who was a Qadariyyah by Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 6/86, and of ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad, who was one of the Murji’ah, by Ibn Hajar: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 6/328.

^[213]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 7/90.

^[214]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 16/211.

^[215]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/556. His saying ‘aysh’ is an Arabic word abbreviated from two words ‘ay’ and ‘shay’’. The ya was lightened and the hamzah was deleted and it was incorporated into one word. See al Fayyumi: al Misbah al Munir, pg. 172, al Zabidi: Taj al ‘Arus, 31/390.

^[216]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, al Duri’s narration, 3/323 (1547), 4/246 (4188).