Tuesday, March 21, 2006

The Use of Certain Weak Hadīth in Promoting a Ribā-Free Society

The use of weak hadīth in the issues of Targhīb wa Tarhīb is well known and generally accepted as long as one sticks to the three conditions laid down by the Muhaddithīn.

Yet sometimes, maybe due to an overriding maslahah, it would be more befitting or possibly wiser to refrain from using such weak ahādith that do not credit the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), not only because they are weak but notwithstanding their weakness, attribute strange words to the most blessed and pure of Creation.

This is not to say that the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) did not make ‘strange’ statements or occasionally use extreme or harsh statements to make a point – but surely if we have evidence from the angle of a weak isnād as well as weakness in the matn or ma‘nah, then it is best to avoid it altogether?

Maybe this is to be emphasized even more so with the current drive towards ‘ribā-free banking’ with all numbers of publications printing the well-known verses of Qur’ān and then unfortunately not sufficing with that or authentic hadīth but then utilizing weak hadīth as well, such as below, so much so that it is becoming the norm amongst the Muslims and non-Muslims that our Prophet was meant to have said these statements.

Indeed, many scholars will be against the above suggested principle, arguing that if a hadīth is hasan in its chain, then that is enough for us at all times. Yet it should be known that this was not the case with the early Mutaqaddimīn of this field, those who not only had mastered the field of Jarh wa Ta‘dīl, but were blessed with a deep level of Fiqh and Usūl and hence were able to note problems (and or ‘ilal) within the text and meaning of narrations that might have asānīd that look sound on the outside.

Unfortunately, this is skill and a reality greatly lacking amongst the contemporary scholars and highlights to us the danger of just relying on people who examine asānīd only when making a hadīth acceptable or not.

In any case, an example of the different ahādīth in question:

حدثنا حسين بن محمد حدثنا جرير ابن حازم عن أيوب عن ابن أبى مليكة عن عبدالله بن حنظلة غسيل الملائكة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : درهم ربا يأكله الرجل وهو يعلم أشد من ستة وثلاثين زنية

On the authority of ‘Abd Allah b. Handhalah, the one washed by the Angels, who said that the Messenger of Allah (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “That a man eats one dirham of Ribā knowingly is worse than thirty six acts of fornication.” (Ahmad, 21957).

Shaykh Shu‘ayb al-Arna‘ūt mentioned in his tahqīq of the “Musnad” (36:288) that this hadith is dha‘īf, rather it is only authentic as a statement of Ka‘b b. al-Ahbār. In fact he mentions that every single chain and variation of this hadith is dha‘īf and this can be seen in the quotations below from ibn al-Jawzī, al-Suyūti and others. In summary:

- the version of ibn ‘Abbās, collected by Tabarāni in “al-Kabīr” (11216) and by al-Bayhaqi in “al-Shu‘ab” (5518). Their asānīd are weak.
- the version of ‘Abd Allah b. Salām, collected by ‘Abd al-Razzāq (19706), Tabarāni in “al-Kabīr” (13:411) and al-Bayhaqi in “al-Shu‘ab” (5514). Its isnād is weak.
- The version of ‘Ā’ishah collected al-‘Uqaylī in “al-Dhu‘afā’” (3:296) is also weak.
- The version of Anas found with al-Bayhaqi in “al-Shu‘ab” (5523) is also weak.

The very following narration collected by Ahmad (21958) who said: Wakī‘ narrated to us that: narrated Sufyan (al-Thawrī) on the authority of ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. Rufay‘ on the authority of ibn Abi Mulaykah on the authority of ibn Handhalah b. Rāhib on the authority of Ka‘b who said, “That I perform thirty six acts of fornication is more beloved to me than that I eat one dirham of Ribā and Allah knows that I ate it, and I knew it was Ribā.”

Al-‘Arna‘ūt said, “This chain is authentic up to Ka‘b.”

Hence this is not the statement of the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). Indeed, after collecting all the chains, Dāraqutni (3:16) said, “This is more correct as a statement of Ka‘b.”

The other famous hadīth (which has numerous slight variations in wording), has also been collected by ibn al-Jawzi in “al-Maudhū‘āt” (2:245), where he said:

أنبأنا أبو الحسن أحمد بن محمد أنبأنا يوسف بن أحمد حدثنا العقيلى حدثنا محمد بن العباس المؤدب حدثنا سعيد بن عبدالحميد بن جعفر حدثنا عبدالله بن زياد حدثنا عكرمة عن عمار بن يحيى بن أبى كثير عن أبى سلمة عن أبى هربرة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : الربا سبعون بابا أصغرها كالزاني ينكح أمه

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah, that on the authority of the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) that he said, “Ribā has seventy gates, the least of which is like a fornicator who copulates with his mother.

Again, all the chains that narrate this hadīth have fatal problems, criticized by the Muhaddithīn, as summarized in the quotes below.

Shaykh Abu Ishāq al-Huwayni said in his book “Ghawth al-Makdūd bi-Takhrīj Muntaqā Ibn al-Jārūd” (p. 225) in conclusion:

“It is simply not possible to attribute such hadīth to the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), neither as a Sahīh narration or a Hasan narration; the very best they can ever be is Dha‘īf whereas personally I hold them to be Bātil. The narration has much idhtirāb (problems/doubt) in its text: sometimes it says, ‘seventy gates’, another time it says, ‘seventy-odd’, another time ‘seventy two’, another time ‘seventy three’. Also it is found to be, ‘worse than thirty three acts of fornication’ and another time, ‘thirty five’ and then another time, ‘thirty six’, and another time, ‘thirty seven’ and then another time, ‘thirty nine’…”

Ibn al-Jawzi sums it up in “al-Maudhu‘āt” (2:248) when he said,

قال المصنف قلت : واعلم أن مما يرد صحة هذه الاحاديث أن المعاصي إنما يعلم مقاديرها بتأثيراتها والزنا يفسد الانساب ، ويصرف الميراث إلى غير مستحقيه ، ويؤثر من القبائح ما لا يوثر أكل لفمة لا تتعدى ارتكاب نهى ، فلا وجه لصحة هذا .

“Know that what refutes the authenticity of such ahādīth (other than their chains being weak) is that sin can be known by its level and its effects; adultery destroys lineage, diverts the inheritance to those undeserving of it, and has disgusting effects which eating a morsel of ribā doesn’t, indeed nothing more than its prohibition. So there is no possibility of authentication (of such ahādīth).”

Concerning the last sentence of ibn al-Jawzi, we could argue that Ribā has indeed caused much rampant damage in society, none more so than in today’s debt-ridden times, yet just one dirham being equivalent to that?? This is the point being made by the early Muhaddithīn.

It is amazing to find that every single chain of this narration and similar narrations have inherent problems and it is this fact which such scholars utilize to find problems with the meaning or matn of the hadīth. It is known that this is a very delicate and dangerous area of skill, and hence should never be utilised except by the well known masters of this art, and only then after clear indications with the problems from the chains.

If one considers the prohibition of the major sins such as shirk, zinā and the taking of innocent life, it is clear that the relatively late prohibition of ribā gives indication of its unsuitability with respect to the above claimed statements of our beloved Messenger (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). These statements should only be related as statements of the companions or their followers as what is correct such as ibn Mas‘ūd and Ka‘b b. Ahbar (radhy Allāhu ‘anhum).

Hence, we should refrain as a community from using all of these types of ahādīth concerning extreme sexual acts etc in comparison to morsels of ribā, and at the very least stop attributing them to the blessed Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) due to the overwhelming evidence as can be found in the books of Jarh wa Ta‘dil.

Indeed, the authentic narrations and verses of Qur’ān are clear and sufficient, and one doesn’t need such weak and indeed offensive claims, to establish the Muslims and non-Muslims that usury is a war on God and indeed humanity itself.

And Allah knows best.

Notes:

قال ابن الجوزي في الموضوعات الجزء الثاني 2:248

باب تعظيم أمر الربا على الزنا

فيه عن أبى هريرة وأنس وابن حنظلة وعائشة رضى الله عنهم : فأما حديث أبى هريرة فله طريقان : الطريق الاول : أنبأنا عبد الوهاب الحافظ أنبأنا محمد بن المظفر أنبأنا / صفحة 245 / أبو الحسن أحمد بن محمد أنبأنا يوسف بن أحمد حدثنا العقيلى حدثنا محمد بن العباس المؤدب حدثنا سعيد بن عبدالحميد بن جعفر حدثنا عبدالله بن زياد حدثنا عكرمة عن عمار بن يحيى بن أبى كثير عن أبى سلمة عن أبى هربرة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : " الربا سبعون بابا أصغرها كالزاني ينكح أمه " . الطريق الثاني : أنبأنا زاهر بن طاهر أنبأنا أبو بكر البيهقى أنبأنا أبو عبدالله محمد بن عبدالله الحاكم أنبأنا أبو جعفر محمد بن أحمد بن إسماعيل حدثنا أبويحيى البزاز حدثنا محمد بن الحسن الحيرى حدثنا حفص بن عبدالرحمن حدثنا عبدالله بن زياد حدثنا عكرمة بن عمار عن يحيى بن أبى كثير عن أبى سلمة عن أبى هريرة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : " الربا سبعون بابا أصغرها عند الله كالذى ينكح أمه " . وأما حديث ابن عباس فأنبأنا محمد بن عبدالملك أنبأنا الجوهرى عن الدار قطني عن أبى حاتم بن حبان أنبأنا الحسين بن عبدالله القطان حدثنا الوليد ابن عتبة حدثنا محمد بن خمير حدثنا إسماعيل عن حنش عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال : " من أكل درهما ربا فهو مثل ستة وثلاثين زنية ومن نبت لحمه من السحت فالنار أولى به " . وأما حديث أنس فله طريقان : الطريق الاول : أنبأنا محمد بن عبدالملك أنبأنا ابن مسعدة أنبأنا حمزة أنبأنا ابن عدى حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن الهيثم حدثنا محمد بن على بن الحسن بن شقيق قال سمعت أبى يقول أخبرني أبو مجاهد عن ثابت عن أنس قال : " خطبنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فذكر الربا وعظيم شأنه وقال : إن الدرهم يصيب الرجل من الربا أعظم عند الله في الخطيئة من سنة وثلاثين زنية يزنيها الرجل ، وإن أربى الربى عرض الرجل المسلم " . / صفحة 246 / الطريق الثاني : أنبأنا عبد الوهاب أنبأنا المبارك بن عبد الجبار حدثنا عبدالله ابن الحسين الهمداني حدثنا الدار قطني حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن إبراهيم الصلحى حدثنا أبو فروة يزيد بن محمد حدثنا أبى حدثنا طلحة بن زيد عن الاوزاعي عن يحيى بن أبى كثير عن يحيى بن مالك قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : " الربا سبعون بابا أهون باب منه الذى يأتي أمه في الاسلام وهو يعرفها ، وإن من أربا الربا خرق المرء عرض أخيه ، وخرق عرض أخيه أن يقول فيه ما يكره من مساويه ، والبهتان أن يقول فيه ما ليس فيه " . وأما حديث ابن حنظلة فله طريقان : الطريق الاول : أنبأنا ابن الحصين أنبأنا ابن المذهب أنبأنا القطيعى حدثنا عبدالله بن أحمد بن حنبل حدثنى أبى ح . وأنبأنا عبد الحق بن أحمد أنبأنا عبدالرحمن بن أحمد حدثنا أبو بكر بن بشران حدثنا على بن عمر حدثنا أحمد بن العباس البغوي حدثنا يحيى بن يزداد أبو الصفر حدثنا حسين بن محمد حدثنا جرير ابن حازم عن أيوب عن ابن أبى مليكة عن عبدالله بن حنظلة - عسل - [ غسيل ] الملائكة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : " درهم ربا يأكله الرجل وهو يعلم أشد من ستة وثلاثين زنية " . الطريق الثاني : أنبأنا عبد الحق أنبأنا عبدالرحمن بن أحمد أنبأنا أبو بكر ابن بشران حدثنا الدار قطني حدثنا البغوي حدثنا هاشم بن الحرث حدثنا عبيد الله بن عمرو عن ليث عن عبدالله بن أبى مليكة عن عبدالله بن حنظلة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : " لدرهم ربا أشد عند الله تعالى من ستة وثلاثين زنية في الحطيم " . وأما حديث عائشة رضى الله عنها فله طريقان : الطريق الاول : أنبأنا محمد بن أبى القاسم البغدادي أنبأنا حمد بن أحمد / صفحة 247 / الحداد أنبأنا أبو نعيم الحافظ حدثنا أبو إسحاق بن حمزة حدثنا أبو على محمد بن أحمد بن سعيد حدثنا عبدالله بن محمد بن عيشون حدثنا عبد الغفار بن الحكم حدثنا سوار بن مصعب عن ليث وخلف بن حوشب عن مجاهد عن عائشة رضى الله عنها قالت : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : " إن الربا بضع وسبعون بابا ، أصغرها كالواقع على أمه ، والدرهم الواحد من الربا أعظم عند الله من ستة وثلاثين زنية " . الطريق الثاني : أنبأنا عبد الوهاب أنبأنا ابن بكران حدثنا العتيقي حدثنا يوسف حدثنا العقيلى حدثنا إبراهيم بن عبدالله بن سعيد بن محمد الجرمى حدثنا أبو ثميلة حدثنا عمران بن أنس أبو أنس عن ابن أبى مليكة عن عائشة أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : الدرهم ربا أعظم عند الله من سبعة وثلاثين زنية


ليس في هذه الاحاديث شئ صحيح

أما حديث أبى هريرة ففى طريقيه عبدالله بن زياد وقد كذبوه ، وقال البخاري : إنما روى هذا الحديث أبو سلمة عن عبدالله بن سلام نفسه . وأما حديث أنس ففى طريقه الاول أبو مجاهد واسمه عبدالله بن كيسان المروزى . قال البخاري : هو منكر الحديث . والطريق الثاني تفرد به طلحة ابن زيد . قال البخاري : منكر الحديث ، وقال النسائي : متروك الحديث

وأما حديث ابن حنظلة ففى الطريق الاول حسين بن محمد وهو حسين بن محمد بن بهرام أبو محمد المروزى . قال أبو حاتم الرازي : رأيته ولم أسمع منه ، وسئل أبو حاتم عن حديث يرويه حسين فقال خطأ ، فقيل له : الوهم ممن ؟ فقال : من حسين ينبغى أن يكون . وفى الطريق الثاني ليث . قال أبو حاتم الرازي : لا يشتغل به ، وهو مضطرب الحديث . قال المصنف قال : وإنما يروى هذا عن كعب . أنبأنا ابن الحصين أنبأنا / صفحة 248 / ابن المذهب أنبأنا أحمد بن جعفر حدثنا عبدالله بن أحمد حدثنى أبى حدثنا وكيع حدثنا سفيان عن عبد العزيز بن رفيع عن ابن أبى مليكة عن ابن حنظلة عن كعب أنه قال : " لان أزنى أحب إلى من أن آكل درهما من ربا " . قال الدار قطني : وهذا أصح من المرفوع

وأما حديث عائشة ففى طريقه الاول سوار بن مصعب . قال أحمد ويحيى والنسائي : متروك الحديث ، وقال أبو داود : ليس بثقة . وفى طريقه الثاني عمران بن أنس . قال العقيلى : لا يتابع على حديثه . قال وهذا يروى من غير هذا الوجه مرسلا عن ابن أبى مليكة . قال وحدثنا محمد بن موسى البلخى حدثنا مكى بن إبراهيم حدثنا ابن جريج قال حدثنى ابن أبى مليكة أنه سمع عبدالله بن حنظلة الراهب يحدث عن كعب الاحبار أنه قال : " ربا درهم يأكله الانسان وهو يعلم أعز عليه في الاثم من ستة وثلاثين زنية "

قال المصنف قلت : واعلم أن مما يرد صحة هذه الاحاديث أن المعاصي إنما يعلم مقاديرها بتأثيراتها والزنا يفسد الانساب ، ويصرف الميراث إلى غير مستحقيه ، ويؤثر من القبائح ما لا يوثر أكل لفمة لا تتعدى ارتكاب نهى ، فلا وجه لصحة هذا .


علل ابن أبي حاتم ج: 1 ص: 391

1170 سئل ابو زرعة عن حديث رواه محمد بن رافع النيسابوري عن ابراهيم بن عمر الصنعاني عن النعمان يعنى ابن الزبير عن طاوس عن ابن عباس عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال الربا نيف وسبعون بابا أهو باب من الربا مثل من أتى أمه في الاسلام ودرهم ربا أشد من خمس وثلاثين زنية وأشد الربا أو أربى الربا أو أخبث الربا انتهاك عرض المسلم أو انتهاك حرمته قال أبو زرعة هذا حديث منكر


قال الكناني في تنزيه الشريعة ج:2 ص:195

(22)حديث الربا سبعون بابا أصغرها كالذي ينكح أمه (عق) من حديث أبي هريرة وفيه عبد الله بن زياد وهو ابن سمعان من حديث ابن عباس بلفظ من أكل درهم ربا فهو مثل ستة وثلاثين زنية ومن نبت لحمه من السحت فالنار أولى به وفيه حنش الصنعاني ضعيف (عد) من حديث أنس بلفظ إن الدرهم يصيبه الرجل من الربا أعظم عند الله في الخطيئة من ست وثلاثين زنية وإن أربى الربا عرض الرجل المسلم وفيه عبد الله بن كيسان متروك من حديث أنس أيضا بلفظ الربا سبعون بابا أهون باب الذي يأتي أمه في الإسلام وهو يعرفها وإن من أربى الربا خرق المرء عرض أخيه المسلم وخرق عرض أخيه أن يقول فيه ما يكره من مساويه والبهتان أن يقول فيه ما ليس فيه تفرد به طلحة بن زيد وهو متروك من حديث عائشة بلفظ إن الربا بضع وسبعون بابا أصغرها كالواقع على أمه والدرهم الواحد من الربا أعظم عند الله من ستة وثلاثين زنية وفي سنده سوار بن مصعب (عق) من حديثها أيضا وفيه عمران بن أنس لا يتابع على حديثه (أحمد) في مسنده من حديث عبد الله بن حنظلة غسيل الملائكة ولفظه درهم ربا يأكله الرجل وهو يعلم أشد من ستة وثلاثين زنية وفيه حسين بن محمد بن بهرام المروزي ضعفه أبو حاتم وتابعه ليث أخرجه والداقطني وليث مضطرب الحديث ورواه ابن حنظلة عن كعب موقوفا أخرجه أحمد والدارقطني وقال هذا أصح من المرفوع (تعقب) بأن هذا مجازفة قال الحافظ ابن حجر في القول المسدد في الكلام على حديث عبد الله بن حنظلة حسين أخرج له الشيخان ووثقه الناس كيف ولم ينفرد بل تابعه ليث وهو وإن ضعف فإنما ضعف من قبل حفظه فهو متابع قوي وقول الدارقطني إن الموقوف أصح من المرفوع لا يلزم منه أن يكون المرفوع موضوعا ولا مانع من أن يكون الحديث عند عبد الله بن حنظلة مرفوعا وموقوفا وحديث ابن عباس شاهد له قوي وهو عند البيهقي في الشعب والطبراني في أثناء حديث انتهى كلام ابن حجر ملخصا وحديث أبي هريرة لم ينفرد به عبد الله بن زياد بل تابعه النضر أخرجه البخاري في تاريخه وابن المنذر في تفسيره وتابعه أيضا عفيف بن سالم أخرجه البيهقي في الشعب وأخرجه أيضا من طريق عبد الله بن زياد ومن وجه آخر عن أبي هريرة (قلت) ورواه ابن ماجه بسند رجاله ثقات إلا أبا معشر فقد ضعفه الأكثرون وقال ابن عدي هو مع ضعفه يكتب حديثه ولفظه الربا سبعون حوبا أيسرها أن ينكح الرجل أمه ورأيت بخط الحافظ ابن حجر على هامش نسخة من الموضوعات عبد الله بن زياد المذكور ليس هو ابن سمعان الذي كذبوه إنما هو السحيمي ولم أر لأحد فيه تكذيبا والله تعالى أعلم ولحديث ابن عباس طريق آخر أخرجه الطبراني في الأوسط وقد ورد من حديث ابن مسعود أخرجه الحاكم وقال صحيح على شرط الشيخين قلت) رواه البيهقي من طريق الحاكم وقال هذا إسناد صحيح والمتن منكر بهذا الإسناد ولا أعلمه إلا وهما وكأنه دخل لبعض رواته إسناد في إسناد والله تعالى أعلم وجاء أيضا من حديث البراء بن عازب أخرجه الطبراني في الأوسط

قلت) في سنده عمر بن راشد وثقه العجلي وضعفه الجمهور والله أعلم ومن حديث عبد الله بن سلام أخرجه الطبراني في الكبير وفيه انقطاع لأنه من رواية عطاء الخراساني عنه ولم يسمع منه


وقال السيوطي في اللآلىء المصنوعة ج:2 ص:127

العقيلي( حدثنا محمد بن العباس المؤدب حدثنا سعيد بن عبد الحميد بن جعفر حدثنا عبد الله بن زياد حدثنا عكرمة بن عمار عن يحيى بن أبي كثير عن أبي سلمة عن أبي هريرة عن النبي قال الربا سبعون بابا أصغرها كالذي ينكح أمه
عبد الله بن زياد كذبوه (قلت) قال العقيلي رواه عفيف بن سالم عن عكرمة هكذا وحدثنا محمد بن إسماعيل حدثنا أحمد بن إسحاق الحضرمي حدثنا عكرمة بن عمار عن يحيى بن أبي كثير عن أبي سلمة عن عبد الله بن سلام قالالربا سبعون بابا أصغرها كالذي ينكح أمه والله أعلم
ابن حبان( أنبأنا الحسين بن عبد الله القطان حدثنا الوليد بن عتبة حدثنا محمد بن حمير حدثنا إسماعيل بن خنيس عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس عن رسول الله قال من أكل درهما ربا فهو مثل ستة وثلاثين زنية ومن نبت لحمه من السحت فالنار أولى به
ابن عدي( حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن الهيثم حدثنا محمد بن علي بن الحسن بن شقيق سمعت أبي يقول أخبرني أبو مجاهد عن ثابت عن أنس قال خطبنا رسول الله فذكر الربا وعظم شأنه فقال إن الدرهم يصيبه الرجل من الربا أعظم عند الله في الخطيئة من ستة وثلاثين زنية وإن أربى الربا تمرض الرجل المسلم أبو مجاهد عبد الله بن كيسان المروزي متروك والله أعلم
الدارقطني( حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن إبراهيم الطلحي حدثنا أبو فروة يزيد بن محمد حدثنا أبي حدثنا طلحة بن رعيد عن الأوزاعي عن يحيى بن أبي كثير عن أنس بن مالك قال قال رسول الله الربا سبعون بابا أهون باب منه الذي يأتي أمه في الإسلام وهو يعرفها وإن من أربى الربا خرق المرء عرض أخيه وخرق عرض أخيه أن يقول فيه ما يكره من مساويه والبهتان أن يقول فيه ما ليس فيه (أبو نعيم) حدثنا أبو إسحاق بن حمزة حدثنا أبو محمد علي بن أحمد بن سعيد حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد بن عيشوس حدثنا عبد الغفار بن الحكم حدثنا سوار بن مصعب عن ليث وخلف بن حوشب عن مجاهد عن عائشة (مرفوعا) الربا بضع وسبعون بابا أصغرها كالواقع على أمه والدرهم الواحد من الربا أعظم عند الله من ستة وثلاثين زنية سوار متروك
العقيلي( حدثنا إبراهيم بن عبد بن سعيد بن محمد الجرمي حدثنا أبو ثميلة حدثنا عمران بن أنس أبو أنس عن ابن أبي مليكة عن عائشة مرفوعا الدرهم ربا أعظم عند الله من سبعة وثلاثين زنية قال العقيلي عمران لا يتابع على حديثه
أحمد( في مسنده حدثنا حسين بن محمد حدثنا جرير بن حازم عن أيوب عن ابن أبي مليكة عن عبد الله بن حنظلة غسيل الملائكة قال قال رسول الله درهم الربا يأكله الرجل وهو يعلم أشد من ستة وثلاثين زنية حسين بن محمد هو ابن بهرام المروزي قال أبو حاتم رأيته ولم أسمع منه وسئل أبو حاتم عن حديث يرويه حسين فقال خطأ فقيل له الوهم ممن قال ينبغي أن يكون من حسين
الدارقطني( حدثنا البغوي حدثنا هاشم بن الحارث حدثنا عبيد الله بن عمرو عن ليث عن عبد الله بن أبي سبيكة عن عبد الله بن حنظلة أن رسول الله قال الدرهم ربا أشد عند الله من ستة وثلاثين زنية في الحطيم ليث مضطرب الحديث وإنما يروي هذا عن كعب قال أحمد حدثنا وكيع حدثنا سفيان عن عبد العزيز بن رفيع عن ابن أبي مليكة عن ابن حنظلة عن كعب لأن أزني أحب إلي من أكل درهم من ربا قال الدارقطني وهذا أصح من المرفوع
قلت( قال الحافظ ابن حجر في القول المسدد حين احتج به الشيخان ولم يترك ابو حاتم السماع منه باختيار أبي حاتم فقد نقل ابنه عنه أنه قال أتيته مرات بعد فراغه من تفسير شيبان وسألته أن يعيد علي بعض المخلفين فقال تكرير ولم أسمع منه شيئا وقال معاوية بن صالح قال لي أحمد بن حنبل اكتبوا عنه ووثقه العجلي وابن سعد والنسائب وابن قانع ومحمد بن مسعود العجمي وآخرون ثم إن كان كل امرئ وهم في حديث سري في جميع حديثه حتى يحكم على أحاديثه كلها بالوهم لم يسلم أحد ولو كان ذلك كذلك لم يلزم منه الحكم على حديثه بالوضع ولا سيما مع كونه لم ينفرد به بل توبع ووجدت للحديث شواهد فقد أورده الدارقطني عن البغوي عن هاشم بن الحارث عن عبيد الله بن عمرو الرقي عن ليث بن أبي سليم عن ابن أبي مليكة به وليث وإن كان ضعيفا فأيهما ضعف من قبل حفظه فهو متابع قوي وشاهده حديث ابن عباس
أخرجه ابن عدي من طريق علي بن الحسن بن شقيق عن ليث عن مجاهد عن ابن عباس نحوه وأخرجه الطبراني من وجه آخر عن ابن عباس في أثناء حديث وأخرجه الطبراني أيضا من طريق عطاء الخراساني عن عبد الله بن سلام مرفوعا وعطاء لم يسمع من ابن سلام وهو شاهد قوي وقال ابن الجوزي إنما يعرف هذا من كلام كعب رواه عنه عبد الله بن حنظلة أيضا ونقل عن الدارقطني أن هذا أصح من المرفوع ولا يلزم من كونه أصح أن يكون مقابله موضوعا ولا مانع أن يكون الحديث عند عبد الله مرفوعا وموقوفا انتهى كلام الحافظ ابن حجر
ومن شواهد الحديث قال الطبراني في الأوسط حدثنا محمد بن عبد الرحيم الديباجي التستري حدثنا عثمان بن أبي شيبة حدثنا معاوية بن هشام حدثنا عمر بن راشد عن يحيى بن أبي كثير عن إسحاق بن عبد الله بن أبي طلحة عن البراء بن عازب قال قال رسول الله الربا اثنان وسبعون بابا أدناها مثل إتيان الرجل أمه وإن أربى الربا استطالة الرجل في عرض أخيه

23 Comments:

Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

The first comment on this post was made by Br. Imtiyaz Damiel further supporting Abu Eesa's initial post. Here is what he said:

As-salāmū ‘alaykum wa rahmatullāhī wa barakātuhū

My name is Imtiyaz Damiel. I was born and bred in Blackburn, Lancashire. I have one son named Abdullah. Presently I am studying in Riyadh.

Alhmadulillah, it is a great blessing to be associated with such great scholars. Insha-Allah I hope to benefit from you all. Which reminds me, when will Abu Eesa post all the notes he took during the course, so that the unfortunate ones like me, who did not attend, can benefit?

Anyway, I had studied the Hadith on Riba and fornication some time ago and reached similar conclusions to Abu Eesa. Below I have shown the weaknesses in each Isnad (chain of transmission).

Before I discuss the isnads, a few brief comments:
1) No doubt, the area of matn (text) criticism is a delicate one and one, which has sadly been, abused by some “non-expert” writers on hadith. It is true that the early scholars employed matn criticism to a much larger extent than later day Muhadithīn but at the same time they also had strict rules for using such methods and it was not the case that anything that “appeared” contrary to the Qur’an or “aql” (pure logic) was rejected. Moreover, it is important to remember that many of the phrases used in “Jarh wa Tadeel” (Science dealing with criticism of Hadeeth narrators) were the outcome of matn criticism and therefore demonstrate the strong link between isnad and matn criticism.
2) As is known to all, there is much difference on whether we can use a da’īf (weak) hadith even for fadāil (mentioning virtues of certain actions – as opposed to those that deal with jurisprudential rulings). Some of the major muhadithīn like Yahya b. M’aīn, al-Bukharī, Muslim, Abu Zur’ā ar-Razī, Abu Hatim ar-Razi and others, were against the idea of using a da’īf hadith both in ahkām (jurisprudential rulings) and fadāil (virtues of actions).
3) Sadly, even those who believe in the permissibility of using a da’īf hadith in fadā’il, do not fulfil the conditions placed by the scholars who take this position. (e.g. The hadith is not severely weak, the weakness of the hadith has to be stated etc.)
4) Ibn Hajr also included another very important condition not mentioned by others, which is; that the hadith does not becomes very popular and widespread so that the ignorant people start thinking that it is sahīh (authentic).
5) The early hadith scholars judged a hadith weak because of its weak narrator even though they could find a shaahid sahīh (authentic parallel) for the matn. In other words, for them a weak narration is not always, strengthened to “hasan li-ghayrihi” (acceptable due to external factors) because of an acceptable shaahid. It seems amongst the later scholars this became a set principle than any weak hadith was strengthened to “hasan li-ghayrihi” because of some supporting text.

Now to the discussion of the hadīth:
"الربا اثنان وسبعون بابا أدناها مثل إتيان الرجل أمه..."
Ibn Abi Shaybah said, Muawiyah ibn Hisham narrated to us, from Umar ibn Rashid from Yahya (from) Ishaq ibn Abdullah ibn Abi Talha from al-Bara ibn Azib saying, that the Prophet (May Allah Bless him and Grant him Peace) said:
"Riba has seventy two doors. The least one (in sin) is as that of a man who sleeps with his mother…"

This Isnaad is weak for two reasons:
1) Umar ibn Rashid is weak.
2) Ishaq ibn Abdullah ibn Abi Talha did not meet al-Bara as has been mentioned in "'ilal" by ibn Abi Hatim.

The hadeeth is also found in al-Tabarani (al-awsat) via Muawiyah ibn Hisham with similar wording.
The hadeeth is also narrated by Abdul Razzak (Musannaf 8/314) via Umar ibn Rashid from Yahya ibn Abi Katheer from a man from the Ansaar (Helpers – the indigenous Muslim population of Madinah) Marfu’an (continous – unbroken until the Prophet sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).

This chain also has two problems:
1) This chain is broken (Munqati) or Mursal (forwarded – when a Successor narrates from the Prophet sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam, omitting the Companion), since Yahya ibn Abi Katheer did not meet any of the Sahaabah except Anas ibn Malik who he saw but did not hear from him. (see Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb 4/384). So if the man (Ansaari) was a Sahaabi then the chain is broken otherwise it is Mursal.

2) Umar ibn Rashid (weak).
The matn (text) of the hadeeth has been narrated through various channels. The hadeeth has been narrated on the authority of Abu Hurairah, Ibn Masud, Ibn Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, Aisha, Abdullah ibn Hanzalah, Ibn Umar, al-Aswad ibn Wahb and Abdullah ibn Salam (May Allah be pleased with them All).

As for the hadeeth of Abu Hurairah, it has two channels (turuq):
1) From Saeed al-Maqbari from him (Abu Hurairah) Marfu: "Riba has seventy offences, the least is like that of a man (who sleeps) with his mother…"
Narrated by Ibn Majah and al-Bayhaqi via Abu Ma'shar from Saeed al Maqbari.

Ibn Hajr writes in Taqreeb:
Abu Ma'shar is weak.
This hadeeth is also followed up (Mutaba'ah) Abdullah ibn Saeed via his father or grandfather from Abu Hurairah, but Abdullah ibn Saeed is classed as Matrook, so the Mutaba'ah is of no benefit.

2) From Abu Salamah from Abu Hurairah marfu'an (with similar wording).
Narrated by Uqayli in "Duafa" (2/257), ibn Adi in "al-kamil" (5/275) and ibn al Jawzi in "Mawdu'at" (via al-Uqayli) from Ikramah ibn Ammar from Yahya ibn Abi Katheer from Abu Salamah.
The madar of the hadeeth is Ikramah ibn Ammar via Yahya ibn Abi Katheer. Ibn Hajr writes in Tahdheeb al Tahdheeb (3/134) (Ikramah ibn Ammar's) narrations from Yahya ibn Abi Katheer has great disorder (Idtiraab), since he used to narrate without consulting his book. Therefore this isnaad is daeef too.

As for the hadeeth of ibn Masud it has two channels:
1) From Masruq from him Marfu: "Riba has seventy-three doors. The least one (in sin) is as that of a man who sleeps with his mother. And worst form of Riba is harming the honor of a Muslim man."
Narrated by Hakim (Mustadrak 2/37) via Muhammad ibn Ghalib, who was informed by Amr ibn Ali, who was told by ibn Adi, who was told by Shu'ba from Zabeed from ibrahim from Masruk from him.
Hakeem writes the hadeeth is Saheeh according to the conditions of the two Shaykh's.
Shaykh Sameer al-Imran writes: Muhammad ibn Ghalib is classed reliable by Daraqutni in al-Mizan but is also described as "wahm" (delusive). So we have to disagree with him since he contradicted ibn Majah (325/2275) who narrates via Amr ibn Ali (with similar chain) that the Prophet (May Allah Bless him and Grant him peace) said: "al-Riba has seventy three offences". (without the addition).
Therefore the narration in al-Mustadrak is weak.

2) The second narration as found in Mussanaf Abdul Razzak via Ata has two weaknesses:
a) Unknown narrator.
b) Ata al-khurasani is known for tadlis (deliberate veiling of names) and irsal (forwarding).
Therefore this narration is also weak.

As for the hadeeth of ibn Abbas, it too has two channels:
1) From Ikramah from ibn Abbas, that the Prophet (May Allah Bless him and Grant him peace) said:
"One dirham of Riba that a man devours, it is like thirty-three acts of fornication…"
Narrated by al-Tabarani (al-Awsat) and Ibn Hibban (Majrooheen) via Saeed ibn Rahmah, who was told by Muhammad ibn Humayr from Ibrahim ibn Abi Iblah from Ikramah from him.
Al-Tabarani said: This hadeeth was not narrated from Ibrahim except via Muhammad.
Ibn Hibban said: Saeed ibn Rahmah narrated from Muhammad ibn Humayr without Mutaba'ah (anyone following him)…it is not permissible to use him as evidence because of him going against well-known narrators.
Therefore this hadeeth is weak.

The hadeeth is also narrated by ibn Hibban and ibn al Jawzi via Hanash or Husain ibn Qais al-Rahabi from Iqramah from ibn Abbas.
But Hanash is weak.
Al-Khateeb also mentioned the hadeeth (Tareekh Baghdad 6/76) via Ibrahim ibn Ziyad al Qurashi, who Bukhari has classes as unacceptable.

2) From Amr ibn Dinaar, from ibn Abbas marfu’an.
"One dirham of Riba that a man devours, it is like thirty-three acts of fornication…"
Found in al-Tabarani (al-kabeer 11/114) via Abu Muhammad al-Jazari, who is Matrook (abandoned), and accused of fabrication (al-Taqreeb 179).
Therefore this hadeeth is very weak.

As for the Hadeeth of Anas:
(who) said" the Prophet (May Allah Bless Him and Grant him Peace) addressed us and mentioned Riba and emphasized its importance saying, "One dirham of Riba that a man devours, is more severe to Allah than the sin of thirty-six acts of fornication…".
This narration is mentioned by Ibn Adi (al-kamil 4/233) and ibn al-Jawzi (Mawdu'aat) via Abu Mujahid from thabit from Anas.
Problem with this chain:
Abu Mujahid is described as "Sudook" (mostly truthful)but with many mistakes (Taqreeb) and al-Iraqi said the isnaad is weak.


As for the Hadeeth of ‘Aisha it has two channels:
1) via ibn Abi Mulaykah from her.
Narrated by al-Uqayli in "al-Duafa" and ibn al Jawzi (al-Mawdu'at) via Imran ibn Anas from ibn Abi Mulaykah.
Problem with this chain:
Imran ibn Anas is weak. (Taqreeb 429)

2) via Mujahid from her.
Narrated by Abu Naeem (al-Hilyah 5/74) and ibn al-Jawzi (you know where!!) via Siwar ibn Musa'b from Layth and Khalaf ibn Howshab from Mujahid.
Problem with this chain:
Siwar ibn Musa'b. -Nisai' and others said: Matrook. Bukhari said: Munkar al-hadeeth.
As for the hadeeth of ibn Umar:
Narrated by in Adi via Masadah al-Fazari of whom Dahabhi said: Unknown.

As for the hadeeth of al-Aswad ibn Wahb marfu’an.
The Prophet (May Allah Bless him and Grant him Peace) said: "The lowest (form) of riba is equal to seventy offences…".
Narrated by Abu Muaym via Wahb ibn al-Aswad who is unknown (al-lisan).

And finally the hadeeth of Abdullah bin Salam there are two channels:
1) From Ata from Abdullah that the Prophet (May Allah bless him and Grant him peace) said: Al-Riba has seventy two offences…"
Narrated by al-Bayhaqi in (al-Shu'ab) via al-jarah ibn Muleeh who is described as "sudook" (delusive), so the isnaad is weak.

2) From Zayd ibn Aslam from him Mawqoof.
Narrated by al-Bayhaqi.
The isnad is broken since Zayd ibn Aslam died 136 and Abdullah ibn Salam died 43, so between them is 93 years.


CONCLUSION
Shaykh Al-Albani grades this hadeeth as Hasan li ghayrihi (al-silsilah al-saheehah 3/29) due to its multiple weak channels, which he believes can be strengthened by each other.
Whilst many other scholars, especially the “Mutaqadimūn” regarded the hadeeth to be weak based on isnaad and matn criticism.

Ibn al Jawzi writes in his “al-Mawdu’āt”: and know, from amongst the reasons for rejecting the authenticity of this hadeeth is that, evil is known by the extent of its effect, (and as we know) zina (fornication) corrupts the family lineage, and diverts the inheritance to those not worthy of it. It also has disgusting effects unlike that of eating a morsel…".
In other words, the scholars using the general rules outlined by ibn al-Qayyum in “al-Manar al-Muneef” reject the hadīth due to its exaggerated statement and weak narrations.

And Allah knows best.

Abu Abdullah Imtiyaz Damiel

11:45 pm  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

The first adequate comment on Abu Eesa's blog was by an exceptionally gifted individual, Abuz Zubair. (We are yet to receive his introduction.) He posted this:

As-Salaamu ‘alaikum

As pointed out in AE’s post, the Hadeeth has numerous versions, which all points to the fact that the Hadeeth has an origin (asl). Furthermore, various scholars have definitely declared many of such Ahadeeth to be authentic, from them Sheikh al-Albani, al-Hafidh al-Iraqi and many others; and lastly, AE himself pasted the Shahid. (supportive narration) from al-Tabarani’s Awsat which strengths the aforementioned narrations.

All the scholars mentioned in AE’s post aim their criticisms at the chain of such ahadeeth, and not the matn (text), bar Ibn al-Jawzi. Now, Ibn al-Jawzi is popular amongst the traditionists to be overly, and unnecessarily rigid while authenticating Ahadeeth, such that he included many authentic Ahadeeth in his Mawdu’aat (Compilation of Fabrications)! But even Ibn al-Jawzi, his primary criticism is directed towards the chain, whereas his criticism against the Matn comes as a side point with the intention to substantiate his weakening of the chain of the Hadeeth.

Yes, the early traditionists did often direct their criticisms at the Matn of the Hadeeth, without even hearing the chain, but that was only a few amongst those traditionists who were – by agreement – the leading authorities in Jarh and Ta’dil (Science pertaining to criticism of Hadeeth narrators); such as Abu Hatim who would simply hear the words and say with certainty: The Prophet could never have said it. Not because they found the Hadeeth seemingly contradicting the well-established principles in the Quran, Sunnah and Ijma’. (Consensus), but because they had received decades and decades of constant training at listening to the words of the Prophet, that they could simply tell by looking at the structure of a sentence, whether or not the Prophet could have said it.

Criticisms against Matn are also accepted if they contradict the well-established principles of religion, and again, by those who are aware of the principles, and which of them are well-established and which of them are not; and that is after having attempted to reconcile between the seemingly contradicting tradition with a well-established principle, as the traditionists-linguists did in the books of Gharib al-Athar (Linguistically-rich Ahadeeth).

Criticisms against Matn for other reasons, such as apologetic modernists (al-Ghazzali and Co.) rejecting the Hadeeth of the fly, or much earlier on the Mu’tazilites rejecting the Ahadeeth of the Punishment of the Grave, because they simply contradict their intellects, were vehemently rejected by Ahl al-Sunnah.

Criticisms against Matn for being, apparently, sexually explicit to some, is something very new to my knowledge. If someone has preceded bro AE in rejecting Ahadeeth due to the very same reason, then I would be very interested to know.

Anyone who has studied the 4/6 books of Sunnan would know of many other explicit narrations, which the scholars have accepted whole heartedly. For example, the Hadeeth of the Prophet SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam: When one sits between her four limbs and strives, Ghusl becomes Wajib, whereas he could have easily stated it differently; Or the narration of Jabir about Hajj: ‘Until we approached Yawm al-Tarwiyah (the 8th of Dhil-Hijjah) while our penises were dripping of semen’, indicating that the Companions were completely out of Ihram up until Yawm al-Tarwiyah. None criticised or objected to this wording; and the examples for such wordings are many.

There is also nothing strange is Riba being worse than Zina from some angles, while Zina being worse than Riba from other angles. Riba is worse than Zina because Allah has declared war on those who deal with usury, but such isn’t the case with Zina. These are from the secrets of Shari’ah that are only disclosed to those who contemplate. It is not up to us to decide, when the Shari’ah has already dictated to us, which sin is greater than the other.

For example, as Ibn al-Qayyim mentions, Shari’ah endorses the cutting of the hands of the thief for stealing a significantly small about when compared to the money one earns by dealing in usury, yet there is no Hadd (punishment) for the latter. Is it because stealing is worse than Riba? No, because Riba is still worse, even if it has no Hadd punishment attached, for reasons unknown to us. But, one could suggest that the one who steals is recompensed in this world by his hands getting chopped of and is more likely to repent, while the one who takes Riba escapes such punishment to receive the curse of Allah and a harsher punishment in the hereafter.

Wallahu Alam

11:52 pm  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Abu Eesa's reply on his blog...

3. As for the issue of promoting these statements from the Sahaba then that's fine of course! Many of them ARE authentic to the Sahabah but others aren't at all and others are statements of the Tabi'een. In any case, I also mentioned CLEARLY at the beginning that majority of the scholars allow the use of weak hadith in such areas: this was not my point, rather this is a specific thing I have with these strange statements being attributed to the Prophet (s). Put it this way: it's a personal thing...

4. Thank you for all the useful comments. Let's hopefully see a continuation on quality 'ilmi contributions.

Abu Zubair, I know we discussed this issue a few years back in detail on al-Abjaddiyah (by the way, why can't we find that in the archives Nabeel/AZ/Refi??) but we kind of left it to the side as other more pressing issues took over.

You make some good and well-known points. Indeed, I acknowledge in my piece above that some scholars will not accept the principle of emotionally opposing the matn of a Prophetic hadith, yet I insist that this is a well-known skill of matn criticism known by the early Mutaqaddimin, and hence should be nothing strange.

Just because the principle is used and abused today by heretics and apostates, doesn't change the principle in any way whatsoever.

And remember, as I continually emphasise in the above piece, the skill of finding 'ilal (Hidden Problems) has two levels:

1. the advanced people as you indicate, of which were only the Imams of Jarh wa Ta'dil were masters of and hence could just listen to a statement (without looking at the isnad whatsoever) and know whether the Prophet (s) said that or not. I doubt whether anyone will ever be like that again, although that doesn't mean scholars and talabat'l-'ilm can't use their intuition to get a feeling that something just isn't quite right and then join the second group which is...

2. those who have a feeling/intuition and then make a detailed study of the asanid, and then after finding evidence for their position, go ahead and criticise the matn with more confidence, despite their overall ruling on the hadith being based upon the isnad itself.

This second group is wide spread and well known, despite its final rulings on hadith taking many different shapes and forms. Some will just say 'weak', some will say 'weak chain' and others will go further and discuss other 'ilal based on their newfound confidence.

I can say that I have studied with at least two scholars whom I would see get say a 30%-40% 'success' rate in proving themselves right in predicting whether a hadith was correct or not, without looking at the chain. Hence, it is accepted that it is now just a game and pastime and not the skill that it used to be.

In any case, we are fully aware of the inherent problems of this approach and hence we don't choose to promote it too much in general circles.

Likewise, my piece above should not be confused with this. Our original shock at the wording of the 'hadith' caused curiosity: that curiosity then became a study of isnad. After becoming convinced (despite the small number, and yes it is a small number of scholars in comparison at least, who considered the ahadith as fair enough to support each other) of its weakness, then we find the confidence to speak in the matn itself. Naturally, students don't have the ability to do so, so I am happy to say that I checked my findings with one of my hadith teachers, Shaykh Juday', who as you know is probably one of the leading Muhadditheen alive today in the same bracket as Shaykh Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut and Shaykh 'Awad al-Ma'ruf (may Allah preserve them all), who confirmed that he agreed with the criticism of the matn, especially after the weakness of all the chains.

In fact, he added a few more reasons why (similarly to the statement of ibn al-Jawzi who I know you find a tad mutashaddid, but I can tell you, Shaykh Juday' is anything but!) the prohibition of riba doesn't fit with the Prophet's normal warnings against riba. I'm not going to bother mentioning these further reasons for I accept that you'll just write that off as 'aqli ramblings in the nusus, which likewise you must accept: it is my side's 'aqli suppositions versus your side's aqli suppositions into the 'illal and hikam of prohibition and sin etc - what a black hole that would be to disappear down!

In addition to my own teacher's checking, it was this reason that we copied the statement of ibn al-Jawzi and then al-Huwayni to support the criticism of the matn in general, after finding all the chains a disaster, and NOT before of course.

On your point of there being many 'extreme' or 'explicit' statements of the Prophet (s), then I think I'd like to challenge that and insha'Allah I'd like to write a bahth on that one day.

No doubt there are a few but they are incredibly small in number, au contraire the Prophet (s) was the most modest of people and his language and beauty and skill of speech reflect that. Indeed, your own quoted example of hadith of ghusl even reflects that and the debate on this is a big one as you well known.

In any case, I'd appreciate any links or books that have studied this area more deeply. Hal min mazeed ya Ikhwah?

Just finally, you made me smile by mentioning Abu Hatim as one of the major big boys in the skill of matn criticism without having to look at the chain.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had his family to comment on such ahadith? That'd build such a nice case for me wouldn't it?

Sigh. If only....

Hold on! What's this?

;-)

علل ابن أبي حاتم ج: 1 ص: 372

سألت أبي عن حديث رواه عكرمة بن
عمار عن يحيى بن أبي كثير عن عبد الله بن زيد عن أبي سلمة عن أبي هريرة عن النبي صلى الله عليه قال الربا بضع وسبعون بابا قال رواه الاوزاعي عن يحيى بن أبي كثير عن ابن عباس قوله ان الربا بضع وسبعون بابا قال أبي هذا أشبه والله أعلم

علل ابن أبي حاتم ج: 1 ص: 381

سألت أبي عن حديث رواه الفريابي عن عمر بن راشد عن يحيى بن اسحق بن عبد الله بن ابي طلحة عن البراء عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال الربا اثنان وسبعون بابا أدناها مثل اتيان الرجل أمه قال أبي هو مرسل لم يدرك يحيى بن اسحق البراء ولا أدرك والده البراء

علل ابن أبي حاتم ج: 1 ص: 391

سئل ابو زرعة عن حديث رواه محمد بن رافع النيسابوري عن ابراهيم بن عمر الصنعاني عن النعمان يعنى ابن الزبير عن طاوس عن ابن عباس عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال الربا نيف وسبعون بابا أهو باب من الربا مثل من أتى أمه في الاسلام ودرهم ربا أشد من خمس وثلاثين زنية وأشد الربا أو أربى الربا أو أخبث الربا انتهاك عرض المسلم أو انتهاك حرمته قال أبو زرعة هذا حديث منكر

Don't you just love it?

:-)

11:56 pm  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

An anonymous poster on Abu Eesa's blog:

Going back to the topic, and talking of 'strange hadith', what about this one, recorded in 'Mishkat al-Masabith'? Can anybody verify if the scholars have said this hadith is authentic?

Also, is there really a necessity to delve into 'strange hadith' when we have clear-cut verses of the Quran, in particularly declaration of war upon those who don't give up Riba?

I think it would be more fruitful to find out what constitutes Riba, as this has certainly not been made clear to the masses.

12:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Abu Rumaysah's response to that...

Some brief comments to the hadeeth, from memory, that the previous poster referred to in the Mishkaat:

It is recorded by Bukhaari in his Adab al-Mufrad (so I'm sure AE have something to say about it sooner or later:), by ibn Hibbaan, by al-Nasaa'i in his Kubraa and others. Numerous scholars have declared it authentic such as ibn Hibbaan himself and al-Albaani. Even Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut, who seemed to have a problem with the meaning of the ribaa hadeeth, seems to have no problem with the isnaad or meaning of this one in his notes to Saheeh ibn Hibbaan.

I intended to quote this hadeeth, as a follow up to Abu Zubairs' excellent posting above, as another example, amongst many, of sexually explicit hadeeth that scholars generally have not had a problem with. Indeed, in my readings I have yet to find a classical scholar who has objected to the meaning of this hadeeth, I would be interested to know if there is one.

As AE has already pointed out, rejecting a hadeeth based on its meaning can only be done by the most skilled of scholars, so it is something that should be delved into only if one has a precedent from the Imaams of the past.

12:01 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Another poster masked by anonymity...

Can you please give us the references to that hadith in Saheeh ibn Hibban and Adab al-Mufrad etc as it seems AE is at work (probably on the other side of the UK knowing him!)

12:03 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Br. Imtiyaz's response...

The hadith is reported by Ubay b. Kaab in Musnad Ahmad (Volume 5, Page 136,Hadith No.21271, 21272, 21274) and graded Hasan by Shaykh Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut.

It is also in a-Adab al-Mufrid (Book on the Manners of meeting, Chapter 4, hadith no. 501)

Sahih ibn Hibban, Volume 7, page 424, Hadith No. 3153.

al-Mujam al-Kabir, Hadith No. 532.

Sunan an-Nisa'i al-Kubra, Volume 6, page 242, Hadith No. 10810, 10811, 10812.

Amal al-yowm wa al-laylah, page 273, Hadith No. 980, 981, 982.

For a more references and grading of the hadith go to silsilah al-saheehah, Volume 1, page 537, Hadeeth No. 269.

I think it would be incorrect to claim that you wont find sexually explicit words in the ahadith. I agree with Brother Abu Rumaysah and Brother Abu Zubair that there are several examples in the prophetic tradition. At the same time it would be right to say that these are exceptions and not the norm. (I think this is the position of Abu Easa).

To make the use of sexually explicit words as a yardstick for questioning ahadith is quite misleading and may cause brothers to question certain ahadith when infact they are sahih.

Also we have to be careful we dont use 21st century western standards to decide what is appropriate and what isn't.

Not only that, but many brothers will soley rely on an English translation which might not give the true extent of the meaning.

If one was to go back to the commentary of this hadith one will find that the word was quite appropriate and was used to demonstrate the seriousness of al-asabiyyah.

12:04 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Abu Rumaysah says...

Some background to the hadeeth: The arabs would use a phrase to object to something objectionable said by another: ‘uDDa ‘ayra abeek, using a kinaayah (an allusion) for the word penis. The Messenger of Allaah (SAW) told the Companions that they should object to whoever boasts in the way of the people of jaahiliyyah, i.e. boasts of his lineage, tribe, cast etc. by employing this phrase without the kinaayah used by the arabs, rather the explicit words, “fa a‘iDDuhu wa laa taknu,” so in this case one would say: ‘udda hanna abeek.

The hadeeth is recorded by ibn Hibbaan #3153, the context of that hadeeth shows that ‘Ali actually said this statement to a person who was boasting in such a way and the companions were surprised that ‘Ali did not use kinaayah, using instead the explicit wording, so he said, ‘How can I not say it when I heard the Messenger of Allaah (SAW) saying: man ta‘azza bi ‘azaa’ al-jaahiliyyah fa a‘iDDuhu wa la taknu.’

It is recorded by Bukhari in Adab #1963, an-Nasaa’i in al-Kubraa #8865, and ‘Amal al-Yawm #976, and by Ahmad #21233-21237 and numerous others.

12:05 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

The 'Big Guy' AE's response:

1. Firstly, forgive me for the delay in new posting/comments: I'm totally not handling things these days, and likewise I apologise for the poor quality of tonight's circle as I was not really feeling well enough for it despite the false cover.

2. Well done Imtiyaz and AR for more beneficial comments. Indeed my position still remains as above: explicit language is the rare exception instead of the norm and hence as per ibn Q's standards, reason enough to get suspicious until a study of the sanad sets you straight.

And we can't emphasise enough (even if we repeat this another 10 times), you'll never find a greater deviance in our times than one who works with his 'aql qablan-naql i.e. gives his intellect priority over the text - trust me kids, grown-ups and adults, don't try this one at home. Sadly, we've lost good people to this manhaj...

12:06 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Br Hood says...

the translation should not be:
"suck your ...." but instead "bite...."

I mean if your a stickler for accuracy.

There are many other instances similar to this found even in the Sahih such as Abu Bakr saying to Abu Sufyan the day of Uhud "umsus baZr al-lat" (if my memory serves me correctly) so in general it was a manner of disparaging a person or action.

12:07 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Abu Rumaysah's turn...

The narration I know is Abu Bakr saying to 'Urwah ibn Zubayr on the Year of Hudaybiyyah, 'imSaS baZr al-laat' in the presence of the Prophet (SAW) without his objecting. (Ahmad)

Yet another proof of such phrases being in vogue.

And oh, big guy AE :) I like your sly attempt at bringing ibn al-Qayyim into the equation :) He does indeed mention that one of the standards of judging a hadeeth to be false is that its language does not agree with the language the Prophet (SAW) would use, or even his Companions. But who can judge this? He says: Someone who is so knowledgeable of the Sunnah that it has become like his very flesh and the blood that flows through his veins.

errrr. I think we have quite a way to go yet!

Moreover, we have just seen two of the greatest Companions using such language: Abu Bakr and 'Ali.

However your general point is accepted: that if there are questionable signs in the meaning of a hadeeth (many examples of which are mentioned in ibn al-Qayyim's Manaar al-Muneef), then it gives cause to look much more carefully at the isnaad.

And, as again you state, the last thing we want is to open the door for todays secularist and modernist Muslims. But alhamdulillaah one would have to be blind to think that they have the Sunnah flowing through their veins :)

12:08 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Abuz Zubair...

Jk for everyone for participating in the discussion. AE’s point is well appreciated about not going down the ‘Aql-before-Naql' route.

AE’s point about some ahadeeth raising eyebrows and therefore requiring further investigation into ahadeeth is also valid.

What I would object to, however, is the western approach to research, that is to come up with a hypothesis, then doing all one can to prove that right. This sort of research lacks objectivity, something which the traditionists take much pride in. Take, for example, Ibn Hajr’s objectivity while dealing with the Hadeeth of satanic verses. Hence, taking up a challenge to prove that all the Hadeeth which may touch one’s level of sensitivity, have weak chains, lacks objectivity for the start.

Another point to note is that levels of what is considered obscene depends from people to people, and indeed, culture to culture. I am sure we have heard of some sisters deliberately waking up for Suhur, lest Abuji finds out she’s ha’idh; while sisters in other cultures may have no problems with similar issues.

JK everyone for bringing to our attention other similar Ahadeeth, and may I add to that the explicit (and I mean explicit) ahadeeth about the cohabitation amongst the people of paradise (dahman dahman). And how about Kawa'iba Atraba in the Quran?

wasalam

12:10 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

A genuine, well-put, serious and quality question...

Regarding the narration that Abu Rumaysah cited, where Abu Bakr said “go bite on the clitoris of al-Lât” (Ahmad) and the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) remained silent.

When I heard this incident I wondered about the ayah "And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge." (6:108)

Knowing the status, knowledge and understanding of Abu Bakr, I wondered if there had been any comments by the scholars about why he would make such a statement as he did at Hudaybiyah.

Is there anything from the asbab al-nuzul of the ayah that I mentioned to indicate that it was revealed some time after Hudaybiyah?

I'm just trying to reconcile, what appeared to my poor understanding to be, Abu Bakr having insulted a mushrik's idol to his face with apparent tacit approval (i.e. silence), knowing that there is an injunction against doing so.

Can anyone help me understand this better?

Jazakum Allahu khayran.

12:11 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Abu Rumaysah's attempt to answer...

Abu Zubair, again jazakAllaahu khairan for an excellent posting, indeed it seems that `aadah, custom, is the determining factor here. Looking at the commentaries of ibn Hajr, Munaawi, Sindi etc at such narrations, it seems eyebrows were most definitely not raised, indeed they just explained and actually derived rulings from them.

Abu Ilyas: excellent question jazakAllaahu khairan, I don't know the answer, i'll look into it, maybe one of the other students can answer?

12:12 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

...and an equally convincing answer by Br. Imtiyaz, Maashallah!

The narration cited by Brother Abu Rumaysah is reported by both al-Bukhari (The Book of Conditions, Chapter 15, The conditions of Jihad and peace treaties with Ahl-al-Harb, and the writing of the conditions, Hadith No. 2731, 2732).
It is also reported in Musnad Ahmad, Vol 4, pg 323, Hadith No. 18930)

As for the Surah al-An’ām, Ayah 108, most Mufassirīn agree that the ayah was revealed in Makkah.
Al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir report that Ibn Abbas said: “They (disbelievers) said: O Muhammad, you will stop insulting our gods or we will insult your Lord”. Therefore Allah prohibbited the believers from insulting the disbelievers idols. (Abdul Razzak also has a similar narration).
Al-Tabari mentions many reports, two in the form of Mursal reaching Qatadah and one mursal form reaching Suddi, all of whom have weaknesses. The chain that ends with ibn Abbas is a reliable. Al-Albani also includes the story in his Sahih Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (pg196)

Therefore, it seems that this particular ayah was revealed during the early stages of the Makkan period, way before the treaty of Hudaybiah.

Al-Baghawi notes in Ma’ālim at-tanzīl that “although it was right to criticize the pagan idols, its prohibition was necessary so that Allah was not ridiculed.” This shows that at times a good thing has to be given up for fear of evil repurcussions. (See also Ahkam al-Qur’an, ibn al-Arabi (2/267)

As for the comments of Abu Bakr, it was in response to a verbal abuse by Urwa, who claimed the Prophet's Companions were cowards and would not defend him.

Ibn hajr writes:
“This shows the permissibilty of using unpleasant words according to what (the person) deserves, with the intention to scold the one who started it.

Ibn al-Munīr said: In the words of Abu Bakr is an abasement of the enemy, a denial and indication by necessity to their saying that al-Lāt is the daughter of Allah, that if that was the case then she would have what other females have.”

Ibn Taymiyya writes in his fatawa (3/252) regarding the ayah:

وَلَا تُجَادِلُوا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ إِلَّا بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا مِنْهُمْ وَقُولُوا آَمَنَّا بِالَّذِي أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَأُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ وَإِلَهُنَا وَإِلَهُكُمْ وَاحِدٌ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ (46)

“And argue not with the people of the Book except with what is best as an argument, but argue not at all with such of them as are unjust. And say, `We believe in that which has been revealed to us and that which has been revealed to you; and our God and your God is One, and to HIM we submit.' (al-Anqabūt: 46)
“When the one addressing you exceeds his limit, then we are not ordered to reply with that which is best, but rather as Abu Bakr responded to Urwah b. Masūd when he said” I do not see any dignified people with you, but people form various tribes who would run away and leave you…”
In other words, at times it is permissible to use offensive language to silence someone who is disrespecting the religion of Islam. But in all occasions the the benefits and harms should be taken into consideration.

And Allah knows best.

Quickly moving on to the next topic, I have a few quick remarks. I think it will be slightly unfair to criticise Abu Easa for quoting ibn al-Qayyum. Ibn al-Qayyum makes his statement (quoted above) in response to the question, Is it possible to know if a hadith is Fabricated with criterions, without looking at the isnad?
If one was to declare a hadith fabricated just by looking at the matn then no doubt, he has to be one who has the sunnah running in his veins. But to be suspicious and to check the isnad is something else. In fact as it is well known that whenever someone quotes a hadith we are told to demand the reference and not just accept the narration, especially if it sounds strange. Once the person satisifes us by mentioning that it is in the Sahihayn or its grading by the Muhadithin etc we become content. This is why the Muhaditthin have the principle, that the asl is doubt (if someone claims it is a saying of the Prophet) until proven. (See the statements of ibn Qattan and al-Mahdi in al-Jarh wa Tadeel).

Also although I clearly agree with Brother Abu Zubair that the western approach of coming up with a hypothesis and then bending over backwards to prove it, is contrary to objective research, at the same time to put extra conditions to accept a strange narration has been a well known method amongs the muhadithin, going all the way back to the Sahabas. In other words in the same way the majority of scholars were lenient in accepting ahadith pertaining to targhib wa tarhib, at the same time they used extra critical methods when they came across what appeared to be strange narrations. (See manhaj al-naqd ‘inda al-muhadithin, al-‘Azami)

In conclusion, one has to realise that matn criticism is not for every Tom, Dick and Harry. Also there are limits to Matn criticism, this is why scholars always prefered to find weaknesses in that isnad rather than the matn.
As for the hadith “al-Ghiba Ashaddu min az-zina”, al-Albani declared it weak in “Dai’if at-targhib wa at-rarhib” and also in his Da’if Jami as-Saghir, 2204. Ok here are a few other people who declared it weak. Ibn Hibban included it in his Duafa. Al-Haythami also declared it weak in Majmu’a al-Zawa’id. as well as al-Iraqi in his Takhrij ahadith al-ihya .

Allah knows Best

12:16 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Finally, my humble thoughts on the issue:

Assalamu Alaikum


I hope I’m not digging up a done-and-dusted topic. But, I’m sure these will be of interest.


Firstly, the Tahqiq of Dr. Ali as-Sayyah was very much in-depth and beneficial. I also managed to download some more of his wonderful work from al-Meshkat. Jazakallahu Khairan for that, Br. Hood.


As the topic has been discussed in very much detail on Abu Eesa’s blog, I do not wish to reproduce the same arguments, some of which are very insightful and enlightening.


Firstly, the aathaar equalling Riba to Zina (and worse) have been narrated on the authority of over ten Companions and the majority of them are, arguably, marfu’an. Dr. as-Sayyah has critically examined each of these asaaneed and concluded that none of them are acceptable, not only individually but also collectively for the sake of ‘itibar (support). However, these ‘ilal differ greatly in their gravity. Some asaaneed are fatally corrupt while others are not. For example, both the asaaneed of Sayyiduna Anas bin Malik’s narration have problems, but that of Abdullah bin Kaisan is better than that of Talha bin Zaid. The problem with the former is mainly that of wahm (delusion), and Imam Bukhari is one of the only three original critics (rest of them rely on these opinions) to have in fact had the most harsh criticism against him (“Munkar-ul-Hadeeth, Laysa min ahlihi”), yet he has singularly taken his Hadith in al-Adab in Bab-us-Sibab, and from none other than >Ikrimah>Ibn Abbas, which is specifically the area of his problems. Similarly, the problematic figures in other narrations can also be less ‘demonised’.


The point is that all these various Ahadeeth, with their varied wordings, narrated on the authority of various Companions should not be rejected as Da’ief. Collectively, they can at least be Hasan-li-Ghayrihi. Others have actually, based on the multitude of its narrators, called them Sahih bi majmoo’ihi (authentic on the strength of collectivity), but obviously this can be debated.


Also we should keep in mind the accepted principle that since all Sahaabah are ‘Udool (trustworthy), if they say something in matters of Deen mauqoofan (without attributing expressly to the Prophet) which could not have been reached purely through reason, it will be in the hukm of Marfu’.

Anyway, this was not what I had wanted to say. It has already been implied elsewhere.


What I found interesting was the explanation of Hafiz Ibn Hajar towards the end of Abu Eesa’s initial post. Let me paste that with some more sayaaq and sabaaq:


الحديث الثاني عشر قال الإمام أحمد حدثنا حسين بن محمد نا جرير بن حازم عن أيوب عن ابن مليكة ع عبد الله بن حنظلة غسيل الملائكة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم درهم ربا يأكله الرجل وهو يعلم أشد من ستة وثلاثين زنية أورده ابن الجوزي من طريق المسند ومن طريق أخرى وأعل طريق المسند بحسين بن محمد فقال هو المروزي قال أبو حاتم رأيته ولم أسمع منه وسئل أبو حاتم عن حديث يرويه حسين فقال خطأ فقيل له الوهم ممن قال ينبغي أن يكون من حسين قلت حسين احتج به الشيخان ولم يترك أبو حاتم السماع منه باختيار أبي حاتم فقد نقل ابنه عنه أنه قال أتيته مرات بعد فراغه من تفسير شيبان وسألته أن يعيد علي بعض المجلس فقال تكرير ولم أسمع منه شيئا وقال معاوية بن صالح قال لي أحمد بن حنبل أكتبوا عنه ووثقه العجلي وابن سعد والنسائي وابن قانع ومحمد بن مسعود العجمي وآخرون ثم لو كان كل من وهم في حديث سرى في جميع حديثه حتى يحكم على أحاديثه كلها بالوهم لم يسلم أحد ثم ولو كان ذلك كذلك لم يلزمه منه الحكم على حديثه بالوضع ولا سيما مع كونه لم ينفرد بل توبع ووجدت للحديث شواهد فقد أورده الدارقطني عن البغوي عن هاشم بن الحارث عن عبد الله بن عمرو الرقي عن ليث بن أبي سليم عن ابن أبي مليكة به وليث وإن كان ضعيفا فإنما ضعف من قبل حفظه فهو متابع قوي وشاهده حديث ابن عباس أخرجه ابن عدي من طريق علي بن الحسن بن شقيق أخبرني ليث عن مجاهد عن ابن عباس نحوه وأخرجه الطبراني من وجه آخر عن ابن عباس في أثناء حديث وأخرجه الطبراني أيضا من طريق عطاء الخراساني عن عبد الله بن سلام مرفوعا وعطاء لم يسمع من ابن سلام وهو شاهد قوي قال ابن الجوزي إنما يعرف هذا من كلام كعب ثم ساقه من طريق أحمد أيضا قال حدثنا وكيع ثنا سفيان عن عبد العزيز إبن رفيع عن ابن أبي مليكة عن ابن حنظلة عن كعب أنه قال لأن أزني أحب إلي من أن آكل درهما من ربا وأورده العقيلي من طريق ابن جريج حدثني ابن أبي مليكة أنه سمع عبد الله بن حنظلة بن الراهب يحدث عن كعب الأحبار فذكر مثل السياق المرفوع ونقل عن الدارقطني أن هذا أصح من المرفوع قلت ولا يلزم من كونه أصح أن يكون مقابله موضوعا فإن ابن جريج أحفظ من جرير بن حازم وأعلم بحديث ابن أبي مليكة منه لكن قد تابع جريرا ليث بن أبي سليم ولا مانع من أن يكون الحديث عن عبد الله بن حنظلة مرفوعا وموقوفا والله أعلم


So, Hafiz reckons that if the weakness is not due to a deliberate fault, it will be suitable for ‘itibar.


Also, Imam al-Lakhnavi, in Zafr-ul-Amani, mentions under the discussion on ‘itibar (please excuse my transliteration – Its 2:25am and I have no energy to translate):


“Wa haadha huwa ma’na qawlihim: I’tabarna haadhal hadeeth, aw I’tabarna haadha ar-rawii lahu, fa wajadnahu kadha. Wa qad jarat ‘aadat-ut-Tirmidhi fi ‘Jami’ihee’ bil isharati ila daf’it-tafarrudi wa wujudi shahidin bi qawlihi: ‘wa fil baabi ‘an fulan wa fulan’. Wa laysal muradu bihi dhaalikal hadithul mu’ayyan., bal yashmalu haadhal lafdhu ahaadeetha ukhar, yasihhu an tuktaba fi dhaalikal baab.”


“Wa katheerun minan naasi yafhamuuna min dhaalika anna man summiya minas sahaabati yarwuuna dhaalikal hadeetha bi ‘aynihi, wa laysa kadhaalika.bal qad yakuunu dhaalika, wa qad yakuunu hadeethan aakhara yasihhu iiraaduhu fii dhaalikal baab, kadhaa qala as-Suyuti fi at-Tadrib, naqlan an al-‘Iraqi.”



He further states:


“Thumma I’lam annahu qad yadkhulu fii baab al-mutaaba’ati wal isishhaadi riwaayatu man laa yuhtajju bi hadeethihi, bal yakuunu ma’duudan fi ad-dhu’afaa’. Wa fi kitab al-Bukhari wa Muslim jamaa’atun min ad-Du’afaa’, dhakaraahum fil al-mutaabi’aati wa ash-shawaahid. Wa laysa kullu dha’eefin yasluhu li dhaalika, wa lihaadha yaquulu ad-Daraqutni wa ghayruhu fi ad-Dhu’afaa’: fulaanun yu’tabaru bihi, wa fulaanun laa yu’tabar.”


Also, the more turuq a particular riwaayah has, the more general will be the scope in accepting its dha’ief shawaahid.


Although the main reason for the beginning of this thread was the alleged ‘unsuitability’ of its matn, but the options (rightly mentioned by Abu Eesa) for touching this very delicate area are either i) profound expertise and experience of the Hadith corpus – which we can only dream or read about today, or ii) the abnormalities of the asaaneed which may trigger curiosity to check its veracity. But, the important factor is that there should be a clear difference in the two approaches – the former is usually ‘spontaneous and assertive’, the latter should only be with due diligence and importantly, with ihtiyaat (extreme care). This would mean that we are not rejecting the matn, but finding it difficult to accept as authentic due to the faults in transmission. As far as Ibn al-Jawzi’s statement is concerned, it has been replied to on the blog.


But, I’ve got something better. Let’s see what Shaykh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah has to say with regards to the permissibility of quoting certain weak Hadith in a similar scenario as ours provided that the hukm for the action/deed in question is already established in prior. He says in al-Qaa’idah al-Jaleelah fi at-Tawassuli wa al-Waseelah, discussing the position of Imam Ahmad on accepting weak Hadith in at-Targheeb wa at-Tarheeb:

والمقصود أن هذه الأحاديث التى تروى فى ذلك من جنس أمثالها من الأحاديث الغريبة المنكرة بل الموضوعة التى يرويها من يجمع فى الفضائل والمناقب الغث والسمين كما يوجد مثل ذلك فيما يصنف فى فضائل الأوقات وفضائل العبادات وفضائل الأنبياء والصحابة وفضائل البقاع ونحو ذلك فإن هذه الأبواب فيها أحاديث صحيحة وأحاديث حسنة وأحاديث ضعيفة وأحاديث كذب موضوعة ولا يجوز أن يعتمد فى الشريعة على الأحاديث الضعيفة التى ليست صحيحة ولا حسنة لكن أحمد بن حنبل وغيره من العلماء جوزوا أن يروى فى فضائل الأعمال ما لم يعلم أنه ثابت إذا لم يعلم أنه كذب

وذلك أن العمل إذا علم أنه مشروع بدليل شرعى وروى فى فضله حديث لا يعلم أنه كذب جاز أن يكون الثواب حقا ولم يقل أحد من الأئمة إنه يجوز أن يجعل الشىء واجبا أو مستحبا بحديث ضعيف ومن قال هذا فقد خالف الإجماع وهذا كما أنه لا يجوز أن يحرم شىء إلا بدليل شرعى لكن إذا علم تحريمه وروى حديث فى وعيد الفاعل له ولم يعلم أنه كذب جاز أن يرويه فيجوز أن يروى فى الترغيب والترهيب ما لم يعلم أنه كذب لكن فيما علم أن الله رغب فيه أو رهب منه بدليل آخر غير هذا الحديث المجهول حاله وهذا كالإسرائيليات يجوز أن يروى منها ما لم يعلم أنه كذب للترغيب والترهيب فيما علم أن الله تعالى أمر به فى شرعنا ونهى عنه فى شرعنا فأما أن يثبت شرعا لنا بمجرد الإسرائيليات التى لم تثبت فهذا لا يقوله عالم ولا كان أحمد إبن جنبل ولا أمثاله من الأئمة يعتمدون على مثل هذه الأحاديث فى الشريعة

ومن نقل عن أحمد أنه كان يحتج بالحديث الضعيف الذى ليس بصحيح ولا حسن فقد غلط عليه ولكن كان فى عرف أحمد بن حبنل ومن قبله من العلماء أن الحديث ينقسم الى نوعين صحيح وضعيف والضعيف عندهم ينقسم الى ضعيف متروك لا يحتج به وإلى ضعيف حسن كما أن ضعف الإنسان بالمرض ينقسم الى مرض مخوف يمنع التبرع من رأس المال والى ضعيف خفيف لا يمنع من ذلك

So, if the question now is that these ahaadeeth tend to attribute ‘unsavory’ language towards the Best of Creation (sallalahu alaihi wassalam), then this has been dealt with in much clarity and detail (and has also suffered ‘anonymous admonition’ elsewhere).


Wal ‘Ilmu ‘indallah!


PS: Although Shaykh Abu Ghuddah held that Imam Bukhari’s opinion was that of permissibility with regards to weak Ahadeeth in Fadhaa’il, but his teacher Shaykh al-Kawthari strongly held the opposite view as mentioned somewhere in his Maqaalaat. So, this IS a very much contended issue. But, Imam Bukhari’s practice clearly proves the former point.

12:26 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Br Abu Abdullah's enlightening response...

Wa ‘alaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullahi wabarakatuhu

Jazakallahukhair Shaykh Ibrahim for some very interesting points.

Ya Shaykh, I think you have still got me mixed up with Brother Hood. I (Abu Abdullah AKA Imtiyaz) was the one who sent Shaykh Ali as-Sayyah’s research paper and it was
Brother Hood, who was having problems reading you website.

Anyway here are some of my thoughts:

I think the problem Shaykh Ali mentions with Abdullah b Kaysan is not just his narrations from Ikramah as mentioned by ibn Adī, but also his narrations from Thabit al-Bunānī. The hadith under discussion comes via Thabit al-Bunāni and not Ikramah. It is his tafarud via Thabit, which is the point of criticism since his other narrations from Thabit, have also similar problems. In other words, the Shaykh has three major criticisms of Abdullah b. Kaysan:

1- He is regarded as weak according by all if not most of the early critics. Al-Bukharī mentions him as “Munkar al-hadiṭh” (The Mutaqadimīn have, more than one meaning for this word). Abu Hatim said he was: ”Dai’f al-hadith”, whilst al-Uqaylī said “fi hadithi wahmun kathīr”. The words of al-Uqayli are better understood with his other remarks about Abdullah b. Kaysan. He comments after presenting two Munkar ahadith narrated by Abdullah b. Kaysan via Thabit: “These ahadith have no asl in the narrations of Thabit. The most reliable narrator from Thabit is Hammad b. Salamah”.

2- The fact that only Abdullah ibn Kaysan narrated from Thabit makes the isnad more suspicious. Why did none of the other “closer students” of Thabit narrate this hadith? Why is it that we don’t have this narration from Thabit via Shu’bah, Hammad b. Zayd, Sulayman b. al-Mughayrah, Hammad b. Salamah, Ma’mar etc.
Many of the early critics would reject a hadith of someone who is Sudūk, if he narrates from one of the Imams of hadith, and yet none of his close students narrated that hadith. So what about someone who is graded weak?!

3- Salakah al-Jaddah. (Most likely Abdullah b Kaysan, made a mistake and asuumed that the narration was from Anas t marfu, since most of Thabit al-Bunānī’s narrations come in that form).

On top of this we can put a fourth problem and that is the “questionable” matn.
Based on the above four reasons, I would argue that the isnaad via Abdullah b Kaysan also has major problems that cannot be easily dismissed.

In fact many of these asānid are so weak that their existence has no significance and it should be assumed that they don’t even exist. (Wujudihi ka adumihi). Also, as is well known “multiple isnād” in itself is not a sufficient reason for raising a hadith to Hasan li ghayrihi. There are times when a hadith cannot be strengthened. (This is also alluded to by Imam al-Lakhnawi in the text quoted). Furthermore, sometimes multiple chains can also be an evidence of collective fabrication.

With regards to the word, “I’tibar”, it seems one of the first scholars who put a definition for “I’tibar” was ibn Hibban. Yet it is important to note that he like many others restricted it with “al-thikat”. In other words if a weak narrator reports some narrations which are in agreement with “al-thikat” then it is suitable for “I’tibar”. As for what the weak narrator agrees to with other weak narrators, then that is not suitable for “I’tibar”.

He writes in al-Majruhīn (1/296) regarding Saīd b Abi Aws: “there is no I’tibar except that which is in agreement with at-thikat in al-athar”. He then weakens a hadith reported by Saīd (who is graded as Sudūk with Awham), even though he has an authentic shahid for the matn in his Sahih. (See al-Majruhīn and al-illal ibn Abi Hatim, for several more examples).

One of the benefits of “I’tibar”, is that it removes the taffarud from reliable narrators. It is with this in mind that Imam Muslim narrates from some narrators who have been criticized (second class), so that the narrations from the first class will no longer be isolated narrations (taffarud).

Shaykh Ali argues that only the attribution of this statement to Abdullah ibn Salam t and Kāb al-Ahbar is authentic. As for the statement of Abdullah b. Masud t though authentic, does not have the statement about Zina.

Furthermore, as a principle it is true that if a Sahabi says something which cannot be based on Ijtihad then it has a ruling of Marfu. Yet the scholars make an exception to this rule, which is that the Sahabi is not known to narrate “Isra’illiyāt”. In this discussion as Shaykh Ali points out, the two people who have authentically made this statement are Abdullah b Salam and Kāb both known to be experts in the traditions of Ahl-al-Kitab. Therefore, their statements cannot be assumed to be Marfu.

As for the statement of ibn Taymiyya quoted from “Qa’idah al-Jaleelah” it clearly seems to show the permissibility of using Da’if hadith so long as no hukm is derived from it. (There is also the issue of Da’if meaning hasan, according to Imam Ahmad, which we will leave for another time).

Now the question arises, is there a new hukm in the hadith under discussion? Ibn al-Jawzi and others would argue in the affirmative. In the hadith we are told “a dinar worth of riba is worse than 30 fornications” “or worse than having sexual intercourse with ones mother”. This was the matn criticism ibn al-Jawzi was talking about and not the sexual language.

This according to him and others is a new ruling, which is not only, not found in the authentic sources but also seems to contradict the Qur’an, which has prescribed the death penalty for the one who fornicates.

I think what we have here is a clear example of two different opinions due to different methodologies. It would be wrong to claim that no scholar has ever authenticated this hadith. As Shaykh Ibrahim mentioned it is clear Ibn Hajr graded it authentic in light of its multiple chains. Moreover ibn Hajr was not the only one, rather al-Hakim, al-Mundhuri, al-Iraqi, al-Sakahwi, al-Suyutī and in our times al-Albanī all accepted the hadith.

At the same time, there are many others who graded it weak. Shaykh Ali concludes that the majority of the scholars who graded this hadith weak, were the major critics from the “Mutaqadimin”, whilst the majority of the scholars who graded it as acceptable, were from the latter day group.

In fact there are many other examples where many of the early scholars graded a hadith weak but the majority of the later day scholars deemed it acceptable. This is especially true with regards to multiple weak chains which are graded weak by the early scholars but the later day scholars accept it due to its collective strength. Take for example the hadith “There is no wudhu for the one who does not mention the name of Allah”. Imam al-Ahmad, at-Tirmidhi, al-Uqaylī and al-Bazzar all graded it weak. Whilst amongst the later day scholars, Ibn Hajr, ibn as-Salāh, ibn Taymiyya and al-Mundhurī all accepted it due to its collective strength.

Of course it is incorrect to claim that the early scholars did not accept the principle of using “mulitiple chains to strengthen the hadith”. What is true is that, it was not as closely followed as the later day scholars.

In conclusion, it seems at the end there are three opinions with regards to this hadith:

1) The hadith is authentic.
2) The hadith is weak but can be used for fa’da’il.
3) The hadith is weak and cannot be used for fada’il.

And Allah knows best

Abu Abdullah

PS. The view of Shaykh al-Kawthari is mentioned on page 45 of al-Maqalat. Shaykh Abu Ghuddah mentions his teachers view in “Zafar al-AmanI” and then criticizes that view. Nevertheless, as Shaykh Ibrahim said, this is a contentious issue.

Notes:
I found a more detailed discussion on the issue of using Da’if hadith by ibn Taymiyya in his fatawa (18/ 65-68). He writes:
قول أحمد بن حنبل إذا جاء الحلال والحرام شددنا فى الأسانيد وإذا جاء الترغيب والترهيب تساهلنا فى الأسانيد وكذلك ما عليه العلماء من العمل بالحديث الضعيف فى فضائل الأعمال ليس معناه إثبات الإستحباب بالحديث الذى لا يحتج به فإن الإستحباب حكم شرعى فلا يثبت إلا بدليل شرعى ومن أخبر عن الله أنه يحب عملا من الأعمال من غير دليل شرعى فقد شرع من الدين ما لم يأذن به الله كما لو أثبت الإيجاب أو التحريم ولهذا يختلف العلماء فى الإستحباب كما يختلفون فى غيره بل هو أصل الدين المشروع
وإنما مرادهم بذلك أن يكون العمل مما قد ثبت أنه مما يحبه الله أو مما يكرهه الله بنص أو إجماع كتلاوة القرآن والتسبيح والدعاء والصدقة والعتق والإحسان إلى الناس وكراهة الكذب والخيانة ونحو ذلك فإذا روى حديث فى فضل بعض الأعمال المستحبة وثوابها وكراهة بعض الأعمال وعقابها فمقادير الثواب والعقاب وأنواعه إذا روى فيها حديث لا نعلم أنه موضوع جازت روايته والعمل به بمعنى أن النفس ترجو ذلك الثواب أو تخاف ذلك العقاب كرجل يعلم أن التجارة تربح لكن بلغه أنها تربح ربحا كثيرا فهذا إن صدق نفعه وإن كذب لم يضره ومثال ذلك الترغيب والترهيب بالإسرائيليات والمنامات وكلمات السلف والعلماء ووقائع العلماء ونحو ذلك مما لا يجوز بمجرده إثبات حكم شرعى لا إستحباب ولا غيره ولكن يجوز أن يذكر فى الترغيب والترهيب والترجية والتخويف.

فما علم حسنه أو قبحه بأدلة الشرع فإن ذلك ينفع ولا يضر وسواء كان فى نفس الأمر حقا أو باطلا فما علم أنه باطل موضوع لم يجز الإلتفات إليه فإن الكذب لا يفيد شيئا وإذا ثبت أنه صحيح أثبتت به الأحكام وإذا إحتمل الأمرين روى لإمكان صدقه ولعدم المضرة فى كذبه وأحمد إنما قال إذا جاء الترغيب والترهيب تساهلنا فى الأسانيد ومعناه أنا نروى فى ذلك بالأسانيد وإن لم يكن محدثوها من الثقات الذين يحتج بهم وكذلك قول من قال يعمل بها فى فضائل الأعمال إنما العمل بها العمل بما فيها من الأعمال الصالحة مثل التلاوة والذكر والإجتناب لما كره فيها من الأعمال السيئة.

ونظير هذا قول النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم فى الحديث الذى رواه البخارى عن عبدالله بن عمرو بلغوا عنى ولو آية وحدثوا عن بنى إسرائيل ولا حرج ومن كذب على متعمدا فليتبوأ مقعده من النار مع قوله فى الحديث الصحيح إذا حدثكم أهل الكتاب فلا تصدقوهم ولا تكذبوهم فإنه رخص فى الحديث عنهم ومع هذا نهى عن تصديقهم وتكذيبهم فلو لم يكن فى التحديث المطلق عنهم فائدة لما رخص فيه وأمر به ولو جاز تصديقهم بمجرد الأخبار لما نهى عن تصديقهم فالنفوس تنتفع بما تظن صدقه فى مواضع.

فإذا تضمنت أحاديث الفضائل الضعيفة تقديرا وتحديدا مثل صلاة فى وقت معين بقراءة معينة أو على صفة معينة لم يجز ذلك لأن إستحباب هذا الوصف المعين لم يثبت بدليل شرعى بخلاف ما لو روى فيه من دخل السوق فقال لا إله إلا الله كان له كذا وكذا فإن ذكر الله فى السوق مستحب لما فيه من ذكر الله بين الغافلين كما جاء فى الحديث المعروف ذاكر الله فى الغافلين كالشجرة الخضراء بين الشجر اليابس فأما تقدير الثواب المروى فيه فلا يضر ثبوته ولا عدم ثبوته وفى مثله جاء الحديث رواه الترمذى من بلغه عن الله شىء فيه فضل فعمل به جاء ذلك الفضل أعطاه الله ذلك وإن لم يكن ذلك كذلك.

فالحاصل أن هذا الباب يروى ويعمل به فى الترغيب والترهيب لا فى الإستحباب ثم إعتقاد موجبه وهو مقادير الثواب والعقاب يتوقف على الدليل الشرعى.

12:27 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

My response:

Assalamu Alaikum Shaykh Abu Abdullah,


Apologies for the confusion between the names. I’m a disaster with names anyway. (That speaks of my aptitude to discuss rijaal then, huh?)


A few clarificatons/thoughts:


1. I was not implying that Abdullah ibn Kaisan was thiqah. My only point was to state that not all asaaneed are equally fallacious. And the reason why I said that was one can easily underestimate the credentials of the slightly better asaaneed when reading the book, because it more than once generalizes that there are equally fatal problems with all asaaneed. I had highlighted in my notes yesterday that Ibn Hajar holds a narration to be mutabi’ qawi even if it is weak – where the weakness is not caused by a deliberate negligence; it is only due to lack of hifz.

The point about Imam al-Bukhari’s takhrij was simply to mention that while on one hand Imam Bukhari most severely criticizes him, he also accepts his Hadith from one of the sources of trouble as indicated by al-‘Uqayli (namely, ‘Ikrimah ‘an Ibn ‘Abbas) without any further support to his narration. That can prove that his haal is not the same as that of Talha ibn Zaid, who is matruuk.

It may also help to note that al-‘Uqayli mentions three Ahadeeth, one each via i) Muhammad ibn Ziyad > Abu Hurayrah, ii) Ikrimah > Ibn ‘Abbas, iii) Thabit > Anas. He then mentions the Hadith of Haarithah (which is the Thabit > Anas one) via Yusuf ibn ‘Atiyyah as-Saffaar, concluding that these two Ahadeeth, narrated by Abu Mujahid and ibn as-Saffaar, have no asl in narrations of Thaabit. He doesn’t mention this with regards to two of Abu Mujahid’s narrations. Furthermore, he also says that Ma’mar is ‘ankaruhum ‘an Thaabit’. Yes, wa kaana al-ghaalibu ‘ala hadeethi Abdullah ibn Kaisan haadha al-wahm. Here are al-‘Uqayli’s comments:


عبد الله بن كيسان المروزي في حديثه وهم كثير ومن حديثه ما حدثناه عيسى بن محمد المروزي قال : حدثنا عمرو بن محمد بن الحسين البخاري قال : حدثنا أبي قال : حدثنا عيسى بن موسى ، عن عبد الله بن كيسان ، عن محمد بن زياد ، عن أبي هريرة قال : قال عمر : « أيكم يخبرني عن الفتنة ؟ » فسكت القوم ، فقال حذيفة : عن أيها ، تسأل يا أمير المؤمنين ؟ قال : حدثنا ، قال : أما فتنة الرجل في المال والأهل والولد ، فإن كفارتها الصوم والصلاة والزكاة ، قال : لست عن هذا أسألك ، لا أسألك إلا عن التي تموج كموج البحر ، قال : أما إن بينك وبينها يا أمير المؤمنين باب مغلق ؟ فقال عمر : أيفتح ذلك الباب أم يكسر ؟ فقال حذيفة : لا ، بل يكسر ، فقال عمر : إذا لا يغلق « ليس بمحفوظ من حديث أبي هريرة وقد روي بغير هذا الإسناد من حديث أبي هريرة ، عن حذيفة ، عن عمر ، من جهة تثبت ، وإنما هو منكر من جهة أبي هريرة ولا يتابع عليه من حديث أبي هريرة ، وهذا يروى بغير هذا الإسناد ، عن حذيفة ، عن عمر ، وهذا الشيخ حدث عن محمد بن واسع ، عن محمد بن سيرين ، عن أبي هريرة ، بأحاديث لا يتابع عليه وعن عكرمة ، عن ابن عباس ، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم « سمى سجدتي السهو المرغمتين وعن ثابت ، عن أنس ، أن معاذا دخل على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو متكئ فقال له : « كيف أصبحت يا معاذ ؟ » فقال : أصبحت بالله مؤمنا حقا ، قال : « إن لكل قول مصداقا ، ولكل حق حقيقة ، فما مصداق ما تقول ؟ » قال : يا نبي الله ، ما أصبحت صباحا قط إلا ظننت أني لا أمسي ، وما أمسيت مساء قط إلا ظننت أني لا أصبح ، ولا خطوت خطوة إلا ظننت أني لا أتبعها أخرى ، وكأني أنظر إلى كل أمة جاثية ، كل أمة تدعى إلى كتابها ، معها نبيها وأوثانها التي كانت تعبد من دون الله ، وكأني أنظر إلى عقوبة أهل النار ، وثواب أهل الجنة ، قال : « عرفت فالزم » وقد روى قصة حارثة أيضا عن ثابت يوسف بن عطية الصفار ، وليس لهما من حديث ثابت أصل وأصح الناس حديثا عن ثابت ، حماد بن سلمة ، وأنكرهم حديثا عن ثابت معمر . فحماد بن سلمة روى هذا الحديث عن برد أبي العلاء ، عن مكحول ، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : « يا حارثة ، كيف أصبحت ؟ » ومعمر رواه عن جعفر بن برقان ، عن صالح بن مسمار ، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لحارثة ، وكان الغالب على حديث عبد الله بن كيسان هذا الوهم والله أعلم وأما الحديث فقد روي عن حذيفة بإسناد صالح


2. Those who have accepted the collective strength of these various Ahaadeeth have noted that they are reported via a number of channels that do not seem to be intertwined in any manner. Even the problematic figures in these Ahaadeeth are from various eras and different areas, so ‘ijtima’ ‘alal kidhb is virtually impossible. This may help raise its status to hasan li-ghayrihi.


3. Imam al-Lakhnavi has mentioned that I’tibar is not an independent concept. It covers shahid and mutabi’. I was referring to it in that sense. Some Muhaddiths, as indicated by Br Imtiyaz, do see it in a different context.


4. With reference to the mauquf of Sahaabah that is not mujtahad fihi, we can refer to that narration which Ibn Hajar says it is possible for it to be both marfu’ and mauquf, i.e. that of Abdullah ibn Hanzalah. But obviously he has taken it from Ka’b al-Ahbar In one tariq. However, there are some other turuq where either he narrates it marfu’an or where it is mauquf on him omitting Ka’b. Due to these and importantly the raf’ of other narrators, one may argue that a ‘benefit of doubt’ should be awarded to his waqf. As is evident, this is based on dhann only. But, so are many other presumptions made about other ruwat.


5. Ibn al-Jawzi’s criticism of matn is unique and so is his inference that the Hadith is maudhu’. Dr Ali has even criticized this claim in his waqafah with Ibn al-Jawzi. No one has ever argued that this Hadith was setting a shar’I hukm for involvement in Riba. As one of the brothers have mentioned earlier, the gravity of an evil cannot be judged against a Hadd Shar’ie imposed for it. What can be greater evil than calling war against Allah, as explicit in the Qur’an, yet there is no Hadd for it. These Ahadeeth only serve as deterrents. Many more similar examples can be found in Sunnah.


These were some thoughts, but as Abu Abdullah rightly mentions, ‘Ulama are divided on the classification of this Hadith. And justifiably so. Obviously, the safest position would be to classify it as weak, but not so weak that it equals to being baatil. And as a weak narration, its use in Tarheeb will not be impermissible.


On a slightly different note, there is some rather ‘fanciful’ debate in Zafr-ul-Amani in the mabhas of Hadith Dha’ief on that is ‘Mustahab’ a hukm that can be separated from the permissibility of narrating a weak Hadith. Because, if a weak Hadith suggests a reward for a Mubah action, it automatically moves to the category of Mustahabb, which is a category of aHkaam that cannot be proven from Hadith Dha’ief. It is very uniquely interesting, and I will try to put it up here sometime, Inshallah.


Wal ‘Ilmu ‘indallah!


Wassalam,


Ibrahim Amin

12:29 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Shaykh Abu Abdullah responds:

Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuhu

Shaykh Ibrahim don’t you think we should get some commission for entertaining the others?

I think we have reached some sort of conclusion on this issue. At the same time it is clear that we are not in agreement about some of the details. I hope I am not dragging this topic further by making some additional points. I just felt I had to clarify my position. Also, I had a quick discussion with Shaykh Ali, in which he re-stated his position.

1. Shaykh Ibrahim, I appreciate your point and I knew you were’nt trying to imply that Abduallah b. Kaysān is thikah. My point was that Shaykh Ali never implied that all the isnāds or narrators are equally weak. Rather, his point was that they were unsuitable to be Mutaba’a or Shawahid. As you know a hadith which is Mawdoo’ is not at the same level as a Munkar hadith, but at the same time both are unsuitable to be used as Shawahid or Muta’ba’a. (The same can be said about the narrators). Moreover, the problem with Abdullah b Kaysān was not just due to his “wahm” but also due to the other reasons as I mentioned in my earlier post.

2. It is true that Imam al-Bukhari did include Abdullah b. Kaysān in his adab, but as is quite clear, he did not limit the book to Sahih hadith only. Moreover, according to Shaykh Ali the matn is not as objectionable as the one under discussion. Furthermore, there might be other specific reasons for Imam Bukhari to make an exception to this particular narration. This is nothing new in the field of rijal and other similar examples can also be found in the Sahih itself.

3. As for the narration of Abdullah b. Hanzalah, as you are aware Shaykh Ali has responded to the views of Hafidh Ibn Hajr in detail. (See end notes).
At the end, it’s whatever one feels more convinced with. Some will be content with the arguments of Hafidh Ibn Hajr whilst others may side with the other Muhadithīn.
In response to Hafidh ibn Hajr’s view regarding a weak hadith being a “Mutaba’ Qawiyyah” if the weakness is due to memory, one of my other teachers Shaykh Khalid has a bahth on this, which inshallah I shall share with you some day, when I have some time.

4. With regards to Imam ibn al-Jawzi’s comments, as you rightly said Shaykh Ali criticized him for grading the hadith Mawdoo but at the same time agreed with his criticism of the matn. Now you may disagree with his remarks about the matn but at the same time, it is clear that Ibn al-Jawzi is not on his own on this issue.
Shaykh Ali writes in his introduction:

- وعلى ما تقدم - من ضعف جميع الأحاديث الواردة في هذا الباب - أرى أنه لا ينبغي أبداً التكلف بتقرير تَعْظيمِ الرّبا على الزنا، فالآيات الكريمة، والسنة الصحيحة موضحةٌ أنّ الزنا أشدّ خطراً وأعظم مفسدة من الربا، فتبقى نكارة المتن قائمة.

Also as the Shaykh mentioned, it wasn’t just ibn al-Jawzi who had a problem with the matn. Al-Bayahqi had also made similar comment before him:

وَقَالَ البيهقيُّ:((هذا إسنادٌ صحيحٌ، والمتنُ منكر بهذا الإسناد، ولا أعلمه إلاّ وهماً، وكأنه دَخَل لبعض رواة الإسناد في إسناده)).

Shaykh Ali writes commenting on the matn criticism of Imam Ibn al-Jawzi:

وما قاله ابن الجوزي ظاهر ففي الزنا من فساد الدين والدنيا ما لا يعلمه إلاّ الله؛ وقد سماه الله - تعالى - فاحشة وساء سبيلا، ونهى عن الاقتراب منه كما قال - تعالى -: ] وَلاَ تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَى إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلاً [ (الإسراء: 32)، وحرمت الشريعة الطرق المفضية إليه، وسدت الذرائع الموصلة له، وفيه خيانة كبرى لزوج المزني بها ووالديها وأسرتها، ويؤدي إلى فساد الأخلاق وارتفاع الحياء، واختلاط الأنساب، وفشو الأمراض، وحصول الشكوك، وتبرؤ الزوج من نسبة ابن زوجته الزانية وملاعنتها على ذلك، وربما حصل عنده شك في أولاده من زوجته قبل زناها إلى غير ذلك من المفاسد العظيمة التي استوجبت أن يكون حد الزناة المحصنين الرجم بالحجارة حتى الموت، وحد غير المحصنين الجلد والتغريب، ورد شهادتهم ووصفهم بالفسق إلا أن يتوبوا، ومصيرهم في البرزخ إلى تنور مسجور تشوي فيه أجسادهم.
فهل يعقل بعد ذلك أن يكون درهم واحد أعظم من ست وثلاثين زنية!، وأشدّ من ذلك نكارةً تعظيم الربا على الزنا بالأم.

He also writes towards the end of his work:

أنّ ضعف أحَاديث تَعْظيمِ الرّبَا على الزنا ناشيء من جهتين:
1- من جهة الإسناد فجميع الطرق تدور على المتروكين، والوضّاعين، ومن ضعفه شديد، وفيها طرق معلولة وغرائب تستنكر، وجميعها لا تصلح للشواهد والمتابعات.
2- من جهة المتن وقد تقدم تقريره في كلام ابن الجوزي قريباً


Finally, Shaykh Ibrahim I had read the bath in Zafr ul-Amani a while back. Interestingly a few of the contemporary scholars have attempted to refute that position. Maybe we can discuss it when the time comes.

Allah knows best.

Notes:

Shaykh Ali’s response to Imam ibn Hajr’s comments:

قلتُ: تقدم أنّ الحكم على الحديث بالوضع غير دقيق، وهو ما يحاول ابن حجر تقريره.
ولكن قول ابن حجر:((لكن قد تابع جريرا ليث بن أبي سليم، ولا مانع من أن يكون الحديث عن عبد الله بن حنظلة مرفوعاً وموقوفاً)).
قلتُ: أمَّا متابعة ليث فسيأتي الكلام عليها بعد الكلام على هذا الطريق وبيان أنّ هذه المتابعة لا يفرح بها.
وقوله:((ولا مانع من أن يكون الحديث عن عبد الله بن حنظلة مرفوعاً وموقوفاً)) متعقب بكلامه هو حيثُ قَالَ- في كلامٍ له -:((فإن قِيل: إذا كان الراوي ثقةً، فلم لا يجوز أن يكون للحديث إسنادان عند شيخه حدث بأحدهما مرة وبالآخر مرة؟ قلنا: هذا التجويز لا ننكره، لكن مبنى هذا العلم على غلبة الظن، وللحفاظ طُرُق معروفة في الرجوع إلى القرائن في مثل هذا)).
فإذا رجعنا إلى الحفاظ نجد أنهم أعلوا رواية جرير عن أيوب عن ابن أبي مُلَيكة، ورجحوا رواية رواه بكار اليمانيّ، وابن جريج-وهو من أتقن أصحاب ابن أبي مُلَيكة-، وعبدالعزيز بن رفيع عن ابن أبي مُلَيكة، عن عبدالله بن حنظلة، عن كعب موقوفاً عليه، ومن هؤلاء الحفاظ: أبو القاسم البغوي، والعقيليّ، والدارقطني، والبيهقي، وهذا الترجيح ظاهر صنيع أحمد بن حنبل في مسنده كما تقدم.
وقرائن ترجيح رواية بكار اليمانيّ، وابن جريج، وعبدالعزيز بن رفيع عن ابن أبي مُلَيكة على رواية جرير بن حازم، عن أيوب، عن ابن أبي مُلَيكة، قوية وظاهرة وهي:
الأولى: قرينة "العدد والكثرة" فهم ثلاثة.
الثانية: قرينة "الحفظ والإتقان والضبط " فهولاء أوثق من جرير بن حازم.
الثالثة: قرينة " الترجيح بالنظر إلى أصحاب الراوي المقدمين فيه" فابن جريج مقدم في ابن أبي مُلَيكة على غيره، قال عمرو بن على: سمعتُ يحيى بن سعيد القطان يقول: أحاديث ابن جريج عن ابن أبى مُلَيكة كلها صحاح، وجعل يحدثني بها ويقول: حَدَّثَنَا ابن جريج قال: حدثني ابن أبى مُلَيكة، فقال في واحدٍ منها: عن ابن أبى مُلَيكة، فقلتُ: قل حدثني، قال: كلها صحاح، وقد اعتمد البخاري في حَدِيث ابن أبى مُلَيكة على رواية ابن جريج عنه غالباً ، وكثيراً ما يرجح الدَّارقُطني في العلل رواية ابن جريج عن ابن أبى مُلَيكة عند الاختلاف.
الرابعة: أن في ضبط جرير - عموماً - خللاً، وله أوهام إذا حدث من حفظه، و يروي عن أيوب عجائب كما قال أحمد بن حنبل، وقد ذكرتُ عدداً من الأوهام التي وقعت لجرير عن أيوب السختياني، فيما تقدم.
الخامسة: تفرد جرير بهذه الرواية عن أصحاب أيوب السختياني، فأين هم عن هذه الرواية المرفوعة!!.
قال ابن رَجَب:((أصحاب أيوب السختياني:
قال الإمام أحمد: " ما عندي أعلم بحديث أيوب من حماد بن زيد، وقد أخطأ في غير شئ "، وقال ابن معين: " ليس أحد أثبت في أيوب من حماد بن زيد "، وقال: سليمان بن حرب وحماد بن زيد في أيوب أكثر من كل من روى عن أيوب.
وقال ابن معين: " إذا اختلف إسماعيل بن علية وحماد بن زيد في أيوب كان القول قول حماد، قيل ليحيى: فإن خالفه سفيان الثوري قال: فالقول قول حماد بن زيد في أيوب قال يحيى: ومن خالفه من الناس جميعاً في أيوب فالقول قوله "وهذا القول اختيار ابن عدي وغيره، وقال النسائي: " أثبت أصحاب أيوب: حماد بن زيد، وبعده عبد الوارث وابن علية ".
ورجحت طائفة ابن علية على حماد، قال البرديجي: ابن علية أثبت من روى عن أيوب، وقال بعضهم: حماد بن زيد، قال: ولم يختلفا إلا في حَدِيث أوقفه بن علية، ورفعه حماد، وهو حَدِيث أيوب عن ابن سيرين عن أبي هريرة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم: " ليس أحد منكم ينجيه عمله! قالوا: ولا أنت؟! قال ولا أنا، إلا أن يتغمدني الله برحمته منه وفضل " انتهى.
وليس وقف هذا الحديث مما يضره، فإن ابن سيرين كان يقف الأحاديث كثيراً ولا يرفعها، والناس كلهم يخالفون ويرفعونها...
و قال يزيد بن الهيثم: سمعت يحيى بن معين سئل عن أحاديث أيوب اختلاف ابن علية وحماد بن زيد؟ فقال: " إن أيوب كان يحفظ وربما نسي الشئ " انتهى، فنسب الاختلاف إلى أيوب.
وقال أحمد في رواية الميموني: " عبد الوارث قد غلط في غير شئ، روى عن أيوب أحاديث لم يروها أحد من أصحابه ". وهو عنده مع هذا ثبت ضابط.
وقال الأثرم عن أحمد: " جرير بن حازم يروي عن أيوب عجائب ".
وذكر القواريري عن يحيى بن سعيد: أنه كان يثبت عبد الوراث، وإذا خالفه أحد من أصحابه يقول ما قال عبد الوارث انتهى، ولم يكتب عبد الوارث ولا ابن علية حَدِيث أيوب حتى مات أيوب، وأما حماد بن زيد، فكان ضريراً، وكان يحفظ، ولم يكن عنده كتاب لأيوب بالكلية، ونقل عثمان الدارمي عن ابن معين قال: عبد الوارث مثل حماد، قال: وهو أحب إلىّ في أيوب من الثقفي وابن عيينة)).
وعلى كلام ابن حجر عوّل السخاوي في قوله -بعد ما تكلم على الحديث بكلام مستفاد من كلام شيخه ابن حجر -:((وإذا علم هذا فالحديث حينئذ لا يكون من شرط الصحيح، بل يكون حسناً، لأنَّ له شواهد أخرى لا بأس بها))، ثم ذكر هذه الشواهد والتي تكلمتُ عنها كلها في هذا البحث وبينتُ أنها لا تصلح شواهد لأنّ مدارها على أوجه معلولة وغرائب عن ثقات، وروايات شديدي الضعف ومتروكين وكذابين.
وقال الهيثميُّ:((رواه أحمدُ والطبرانيّ في الكبير والأوسط، ورجالُ أحمد رجال الصحيح))، وقال العراقي:((رجاله ثقات))، ورمز السيوطي لصحته.
قلتُ: ولكنْ للحديث علة خفية تقدح في صحته كما تقدم.

12:32 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

And my final remarks... (Phew!)

Shukran Jazeelan Ya Shaykh,

You have NOT dragged this bahth unnecessarily, I can assure you of that. It has indeed been a very healthy discussion with many fawaaid, wa narju minallhi al-mathuubah.


As a final point, what category can this Hadith be assigned to? Definitely not Hasan li-ghayrihi. Then Dha’ief?

If yes, then it would be permissible to use these for Tarheeb (with mention of the weakness, of course) in accordance with the standards mentioned by Ibn Taymiyah as you had posted yesterday.

I would still say that (and you may blame me for being extravagantly persuasive!) criticism of matn may me debated on the grounds that many a time, the evil in a apparently-not-so-grave action is likened to an action which is apparently far much greater in shari’ah. So, there is room for discourse in this area. And to reject the matn because of the language will also be arguable.

I look forward to some more naf’ from all the Shuyookh on this forum. Please initiate/participate in the discussions so that we all may benefit. Nafa’ana allahu bi ‘uloomikum.

Wassalam,

Ibrahim Amin

12:36 am  
Blogger Abu Eesa said...

Ahsantum al-Jamee'

May Allah reward all the 'Ulema and Tullab al-'Ilm who have contributed and given the topic real justice.

Jazakallahu Khayran Shaykhna Ibrahim for your great efforts - well done!

1:29 am  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Some further clarification...

Assalamu 'alaykum

I think we are getting to some kind of conclusion here seeing as we have reached an impasse.

In my opinion (and Allah knows best), all the ahadith are weak and even when combined, they are still not good enough to give strength to a hasan ruling.

As for those who believe that the asaneed are not so weak, then even they will give it a hasan lighayrihi ruling at very best, and even that we should accept is doutbful. Allah knows best.

Now, there is no discussion whether we can use weak hadith in Tarheeb and Targheeb (T and T), or at least we can say that the majority of us accept using them as the position of the Jamhoor.

No, to return to my original point: we have a hadith which is weak which in normal circumstances might be used in the tarheeb from riba, yet I suggested we shouldn't.

This text is very strange, totally out of sync to the normal understanding of maqadir of sin etc (which is a whole bahth in itself of course). As mentioned before, any arguments for or against the differing levels of sin will all be based upon ijtihad and istiqra', hence no obvious advantage to either party in that argument. Yet, we have the additional support that most of the chains of this hadith are very problematic and hence we have that added confidence against the matn as well.

This is aside from the language of the hadith. It is very strange and the point that there are other hadith with strange or explicit wording is accepted, but are not all of them (or at least most of them) authentic? Have we got any strange texts in other chapters of T and T that are weak ahadith and if so, then why?

When I say 'strange' then I don't just mean odd but outright offensive, out of line, and out of the system of Islam, which is what ibn al-Jawzi so accurately articulates.

wallahu a'lam

2:25 pm  
Blogger Ibrahim Amin said...

Assalamu Alaikum,

I understand the bahth has now more to do with Usool rather than a single Hadith. The narration in question is very much dealt with as far as the traditional modes of analysis are concerned. So, the discussion here does not involve this Hadith in particular.

As far as Maqadeer of sins are concerned, they have to be seen beyond the scope of what punishments they would entail in an Islamic State. Those sins/actions which demand public penalty or Hudud are mainly (or entirely) those the effects of which are not entirely restricted to the perpetrator. More so, they are essentially those sins that can corrode the social infrastructure and common welfare aims of an Islamic State. Thus their penalty is physical, public and harsh. We may say that the aim through them is to instate law and order, thereby eliminating the evils that may potentially take birth in society.

Yet, this does not and cannot mean that these are the most heinous of crimes and sins. There may be many sins that are much more destructive for an individual but have no direct impact on society as such.

Lets take, for example, the Hadith regarding ‘missing Salah intentionally’.. In many narrations, tarik-us-Salah muta’ammidan is said to be out of the fold of Islam. Does this make such a person Kaafir? And if yes, then does this kufr amount to irtidad? These issues are not important here, as qad faragha ‘anha al-fuqahaa’. What is relevant here is that the effects of missing Salah, which is a seemingly minor offence than kufr and irtidad, are described as similar to the latter. And this is because the ‘normal understanding of maqadir of sin’ is opposite to this, missing Salah is not taken so seriously.

Also, Shirk is akbar-al-kabaair. Yet, no penalty is imposed for being a mushrik.. Because at an individual level, its ill effects (ta’theer) are generally restricted to the person in question. This is the same with riba. It is only when shirk is collectively mobilized against the interests of Islam and Muslims that there is a reaction to check these advancements. Therefore, the effects of riba at an institutional level are much more alarming than at an individual level.

This brings us to another interesting point. The Ahadith of T&T that are of a similar nature more often than not will liken or even amplify the effects of a particular sin which is taken less seriously than it actually should be to that which is held gravely in general consensus – either due to the physical punishments attached to it or through ‘communal rejection’. If this is already warranted elsewhere, then the issue of isnad will be irrelevant. In our case, where riba is manifestly mentioned as declaration of war against Allah, then any imaginable evil it is likened to will be of a much lesser magnitude. Essentially, these ‘deterrents’ are there to challenge the ‘normal understanding of maqadir of sins’ and aim to promote their ‘correct understanding’.

This should clarify the flaw in Ibn al-Jawzi’s argument, which has no precedent and on the basis of which, he unilaterally classifies this Hadith as fabricated. Here is what he says after mentioning various dubious asaaneed:

قلت : واعلم أن مما يرد صحة هذه الاحاديث أن المعاصي إنما يعلم مقاديرها بتأثيراتها والزنا يفسد الانساب ، ويصرف الميراث إلى غير مستحقيه ، ويؤثر من القبائح ما لا يوثر أكل لقمة لا تتعدى ارتكاب نهى ، فلا وجه لصحة هذا.

His argument has no link to the argument brought forth by AE in that the ‘language’ of the matn is rejected as it is ‘outright offensive, out of line, and out of the system of Islam’. This is a totally new concept. And what Ibn al-Qayyim has mentioned is the possibility of checking the asaaneed of a narration that has aroused curiosity. Rejection of matn, on the back of non-credibility of asaaneed, is not part-and-parcel of this. In this limited sphere, the most one can do is to reject the credibility, as opposed to content, of that particular Hadith.

Nevertheless, who will determine what is ‘offensive, out of line and out of the system of Islam?’ What is the criterion? If the mention of multiple zina is ‘spurious’, then why can it not be accepted that the evil of riba is much greater than their evil combined together? And if the question is with regards to the seemingly abhorrent mention of ityan al-umm, then we also have mention of that on another occasion recorded by Imam at-Tirmidhi:

عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَيَأْتِيَنَّ عَلَى أُمَّتِي مَا أَتَى عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ حَذْوَ النَّعْلِ بِالنَّعْلِ حَتَّى إِنْ كَانَ مِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَتَى أُمَّهُ عَلَانِيَةً لَكَانَ فِي أُمَّتِي مَنْ يَصْنَعُ ذَلِكَ

Note that the highlighted phrase is a jumlah shartiyyah. So, we cannot argue that the purpose here is to narrate a definite event of the past. Though one may argue that Ibn Ziyad al-Ifriqi renders this Hadith weak, but the purpose again is to display that a similar phrase was in vogue amongst the Muhadditheen but no one ‘cared to’ (or correctly, ‘dared to’) correct it.

Also, the danger here – as per my humble understanding – is twofold. The approach of the traditional Muhadditheen towards Ahadith was always independent of their personal preferences. It is the modernists who tried to ‘carve’ out a personality of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) that would be acceptable to the idiosyncratic mindsets of the general masses disregarding the fact that they were trying to convince subjective elements that differed from person to person. And the more people will try to ‘refine’ the image of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam, the more distorted they will draw his picture.

Also, retaining the authority to ‘commission’ what should be acceptable as authentic from what shouldn’t to an individual or a group – through an extended set of principles than those of the Muhadditheen, will only serve to enable the notorious elements of society to discard the Prophetic authority in guise of discarding this self-imposed authority. When Abul A’la Maududi inferred that one of the processes of authenticating a tradition from Rasulullah is to determine whether or not it confirms to his ‘normal’ image (what’s confusing is that doesn’t the matter in question also form part of his noble ‘normal’ image?), Ghulam Ahmad Parvez authored a whole book in refutation to this claim and titled it ‘Mizaaj.Shanaas-e-Rasool’ i.e. ‘One who knows the temperament of the Prophet’ – as a sarcastic remark to Maududi. And it is one of the most malicious works from their entire literature as it is based solely on purely ‘volatile’ grounds to deal with which effectively is beyond the scope of empirical scholarship.

Finally, I personally think – and I may be totally wrong in this - that given the advancements in how information, both credible and dubious, is circulated in society today, the concept of ‘public opinion’ regarding a Hadith takes a totally different perspective. Today we need to circulate these narrations with mention of their weakness, as the alternative will be just confirming to the potentially existent erroneous ‘public opinion’.

And Allah knows best.

Ibrahim Amin

2:33 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home