boriqee
12-27-2006, 12:41 AM
'Ilm ur-Riwayah, Jarh Mufassar and Ta'deel
By Ahmad Shaakir from al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth, on April 29, 2004 02:59:21
Taken From
www.dkh-islam.com
P. 96 of al-Baa'ith al-Hatheeth
Note: al-Baa'ith al-Hatheeth is the name of the comments of Ahmad Shaakir on Ikhtisaar 'Uloom al-Hadeeth which is a summary by ibn Katheer on the book 'Uloom al-Hadeeth of Abu 'Amr ibn as-Salaah.
Al-Haafidh ibn Katheer says: Ta'deel is accepted if the reason is mentioned (or not mentioned) because listing all the reasons would be lengthy, so it is accepted in general form in contrast to jarh, because it is not accepted except if it is explained. This is because people differ over the reasons for one being sinful. So one Jaarih sees something as a cause for someone being sinful therefore he makes him weak because of that, however it may not really the case in reality or it may not be the case in the opinion of someone else. So it has been made a condition that the reason for jarh be explained.
Shaykh Abu ‘Amr (ibn as-Salaah) said: "Most of what is found in the books of Jarh and Ta'deel is: “So and so is weak,” or “ matrook ,” or similar to that. So if that did not suffice us, then a huge door would be closed in this matter."
So the response to him is the fact that: even if we don't suffice with it we do hesitate about his situation, because of some doubt about him that it causes.
I ( ibn Katheer) say: As for the words of those imams who are firmly established in this science then it is fitting that it be accepted without mention of the reason, and that is because of our knowing their knowledge, their ability, and their excellence in this science, and because of their possessing the attributes of justice, piety, understanding, and sincerity not to mention if they give a ruling that a man is weak, or matrook , or a liar, or similar to that. So the muhaddith who is well grounded does not hesitate a bit in agreeing with them because of their truthfulness and their trustworthiness and their sincerity. So for this reason ash-Shaafi'i says in much of his discussion about hadeeths : “The people of the science of hadeeth do not place him in a position of strength,” and he will reject him, and not use him for proof, simply because of that. And Allaah Knows best.
Footnote by Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir: ( They differed over Jarh and Ta'deel: should they both be accepted in unexplained form without mention of their cause? So some of them made it a condition for acceptance that the cause be mentioned in both of them, and some of them made it a condition that the cause for ta'deel be mentioned to the exception of jarh . And some of them accepted the ta'deel without mention of its cause. And they made it a condtion for jarh that the cause be explained in detail. And that is what ibn as-Salaah and an-Nawawi and others viewed, and it is well-accepted amongst many of the people of knowledge. And ibn as-Salaah responded to that by using the books of Jarh and Ta'deel as an example because they usually do not mention the cause for the jarh . He argued that making such a condition would close the doors of jarh . However, he was answered with the fact that the benefit of such jarh is that one hesitates regarding the one they made jarh of. So if we research his affair and the doubt is removed, and he is deemed trustworthy, then we accept his hadeeths .
And some of them viewed that it is not necessary to mention the cause for jarh or ta'deel , because the one who made the jarh or ta'deel is well-informed of the causes for jarh and ta'deel – and the differences regarding that – and has insight and is pleasing in his understanding and in his actions. As-Suyooti said in at-Tadreeb (p.122): “It is the view of al-Qaadhi Abu Bakr, and the majority quoted it and Imaam al-Haramayn, al-Ghazaali, ar-Raazi, and al-Khateeb held it as their opinion, and al-Haafidh Abu al-Fadhl al-'Iraaqi and al-Balqeeni affirmed it in Mahaasin al-Islaah. And Shaykh al-Islaam-meaning ibn Hajr-held a pleasing opinion: 'So if the jarh is unexplained and someone from the imaams of this science have given him tawtheeq then the jarh is not accepted from anyone no matter who he is, unless it is explained, because he has been affirmed as holding the level of thiqah , so he is not removed from that except by a clear matter, because the imaams of this science do not give tawtheeq except to someone whose affair they examine, firstly in regards to his religion, and then in regards to his hadeeths. And they judge him accordingly, and they are the most insightful of people. Therefore the ruling of one of them is not rejected except by a clear matter. But if he has no ta'deel then the jarh is accepted even if it should be unexplained, if it has come from one who is well-informed, because if he is not given any ta'deel then he is amongst those who are majhool, and acting upon the statement of the one giving jarh is better than disregarding it.' And adh-Dhahabi said about criticism of narrators-and he is from those who had read and researched extensively-'No two people from the scholars of this science agreed upon giving tawtheeq to a weak person, nor upon making tadh'eef of a thiqah.' And this is why the madh-hab of an-Nasaa'i was such that he would not leave narrating the hadeeth of a man until they all agreed upon leaving him.” And the opinion which ibn Hajr chose is that which the researcher into ta'leel and jarh and ta'deel feels comfortable with, after refering to the sciences of hadeeth and its books.)
P. 98
Ibn Katheer says: As for if the jarh and ta'deel are contradictory, then the jarh must be explained: but is it given precedence? Or do we give precedence to what is most prevelant or what is most confirmed? There is a well-known debate regarding this from the issues of Usool al-Fiqh and its branches and the science of hadeeth. And Allaah Knows Best.
Footnote by Ahmad Shaakir (If jarh , in which the cause is clear, and ta'deel are both present regarding a narrator, then the jarh is given precedence, even if those who gave ta'deel are many because the one giving jarh has extra knowledge which those who gave ta'deel did not have, because he is agreeing with the one who gave ta'deel in that which he informed of regarding his apparent situation, but he is informing of a matter which is not apparent and is hidden. And the Fuqahaa' restricted this to scenarios where the one giving ta'deel does not say: I know the cause mentioned by the one giving jarh , but he repented and his situation got better, or if the one giving jarh mentioned a specific reason for the jarh , and the one giving ta'deel rejected it with something that absolutely proves the falsehood of such a reason. As as-Suyooti said in at-Tadreeb .)
P. 184 of Irshaad al-Fuhool of ash-Shawkaani:
“The third issue: the conflict between jarh and ta'deel and combining between them
There are numerous opinions about it:
1. The first: that the jarh takes precedence over the ta'deel, even if those making ta'deel are more than those making jarh, and most of the people held this opinion as al-Khateeb quoted, and al-Baaji, and al-Qaadhi quoted consensus about it. Ar-Raazi and al-Aamudi and ibn as-Salaah said: 'It is correct, because the one making jarh has more knowledge that the one making ta'deel didn't have.' Ibn Daqeeq al-'Id said: 'This is only correct from the perspective of those who say that jarh is not accepted unless it is explained, and the companions of ash-Shaafi'i have excluded from this the situation in which he is made jarh of for a sin, and another has witness that he repented from it, because in this case the ta'deel is given precedence because he (the one giving ta'deel) has more knowledge.'
2. The second opinion: that the ta'deel takes precedence over jarh because the one making jarh could make jarh for something that is not really jarh, and the one making ta'deel, if he is ‘ adl, will not make ta'deel except after knowing that which caused him to have jarh made of him. This was stated by at-Tahaawi from Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf, and this must be restricted to when the jarh is unexplained, because if the jarh is explained then the problem that one making jarh is possibly making jarh due to something that isn't really jarh, is not present.
3. The third: that the majority is accepted whether from those making jarh or those making ta'deel. In al-Mahsool, he said: 'If the number of those making ta'deel increases then it is said that it takes precedence over those making jarh,' and that is weak because the reason for giving jarh precedence is the fact that the one making jarh has some extra knowledge, and that is not negated by greater numbers.
4. The fourth: they contradict each other, so neither of them is given precedence over the other except with a deciding factor. This opinion was quoted by ibn al-Haajib. And in at-Taqreeb ”\ al-Qaadhi made the issue pertaining to the case in which the number of those making ta'deel is more, so if they are equal then the jarh takes precedence by consensus, and al-Khateeb said similarly in “al-Kifaayah”, as well as Abu al-Husayn bin al-Qattaan, and Abu al-Waleed al-Baaji, and Abu Nasr al-Qushayri differed with them and said: the issue is regarding when the number of those making ta'deel and those making jarh are equal. He said: 'So if the number of those making ta'deel are more and those making jarh are few then it is said: his having ‘ adaalah in this case is more rightful.' End of his statements.
And the truth which deserves to be accepted is that this is an issue of ijtihaad for the mujtahid, and we have already mentioned that the best opinion is that there should be some explanation in jarh and ta'deel, so when the one making jarh explains why he made jarh and the one making ta'deel explains why he made ta'deel, then the better of them and the worst of them will not be hidden from the mujtahid. As for the opinion that the jarh and the ta'deel which are not explained are accepted from someone who is well aquainted with jarh, then the jarh takes precedence over the ta'deel because the one making jarh can not be attributing this jarh to what is obvious from his situation, in contrast to the one making ta'deel because he may attribute his ta'deel to what is obvious from his situation. Similarly the hadeeths of those, about whom the unexplained jarh and ta'deel may have some weight, are not accepted.”
Al-Albaani said in ad-Durur (p. 222) after being asked: “There is a famous principle in the science of jarh and ta'deel and it is that the explained jarh takes precedence over ta'deel, however, with this principle-like the others- if we look at the practice of al-Haafidh in at-Taqreeb we see that he tries to make reconciliation between the ta'deel and the tajreeh even if it is explained as if he says, for instance, about a man: thiqah. However there is someone who said about him: weak in memory. And that is explained jarh. So he may say, for example: sadooq lahu awhaam (“truthful, he has mistakes”). So he combines both statements. Or sometimes he will say: sadooq rubbamaa waham (“truthful, sometimes he makes mistakes”). So is the principle that we see in the books of Mustalah “the explained jarh takes precendence over ta'deel” to be taken absolutely or do we not use this principle in some cases, and the researcher must combine between the jarh and the ta'deel, even if it is explained jarh?”
So he said: “It is like this, May Allaah bless you. It is the last one you said at the closing of your words. And it is what the practice of al-Haafidh seems to center around in his book at-Taqreeb, even though sometimes the correct opinion eludes him. But the principle is that we combine between the words of the one giving ta'deel, this is of course if he is trustworthy in his tawtheeq (grading people as trustworthy), and between the words of tadh'eef, if both of these statements can be reconciled into tawtheeq. Because it isn't hidden from you that if the jarh is, for example, that he is accused of lying, then there is no room for tawtheeq in this case. However, so long as the statement which we see to be jarh, moreover we see it to be explained jarh, moreover we see it to be jarh that is acceptable, then in that case alone do we try, and so does al-Haafidh ibn Hajr try, and we are with him, to combine between the words of the one giving tawtheeq, or those giving tawtheeq, and the words of the one making tadh'eef, or those making tadh'eef, as much as we can.
Then he was asked: “So is this which you have said to be considered as guidelines?”
He said: “Yes but it is not set in stone like what we say about much that is similar to these guidelines.”
next will be a more detailed matter in the form of a letter
boriqee
12-27-2006, 12:42 AM
A Letter Regarding Al-Jarh And At-Ta`deel: A Fatwa (Ruling) Regarding Hadith Terminology
From Haafidh Al-Munthiri
[Taken from the third treatise in: “The narrators that al-Hafiz al-Munthiri mentioned al-Jarh and at-Ta`deel about in his book at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb” compiled by Abu Sima’ Majid bin Muhammad bin Abu al-Layl.]
[A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF AL-HAFIZ AL-MUNTHIRI
In Tathkiratul-Hufaaz, Al-Hafiz Ath-Thahabi, may Allah have mercy with him, said:
“Al-Munthiri: ‘Abdul-‘Azim Ibn ‘Abdul-Qawwi, Ibn ‘Abdullah, Ibn Salaamah, Ibn Sa‘d. Al-Hafiz al-Kabir, al-Imam ath-Thabit, Shaykh al-Islam, Zaki ad-Deen, Abu Muhammad al-Munthiri, ash-Shaami, then, al-Misri.
He was born during the beginning of Sha‘baan in the year 581H. He learned to recite the Qur’an, Arabic studies, fiqh and then he sought knowledge in this field (hadith) and became proficient in it. He heard from …”
Then he listed a number of Shaykhs and the various cities in Muslim lands to which he traveled to listen to them and learn from them, as well as mentioning some of his books. Among the most famous were his abridged Sahih Muslim and abridged Abu Dawud.
Then he listed some of the important Hufaaz who learned from al-Hafiz al-Munthiri, and that he held an important teaching position in Cairo.
Ath-Thahabi said: “Ash-Sharif ‘Izz ad-Deen said: ‘Our Shaykh Zaki ad-Deen was unequalled in ‘uloom al-hadith regarding its various branches, knowledgeable of the sahih, the weak, the deficient, and the various routes. He was profound in knowing its rulings, meanings, and conflicting issues. He was proficient in the rare narrations of hadith, precise pronunciation of hadith, and their various wordings. He was an Imam, a proof, firm, cautious, precise in speech and reliable in narration, who when an excerpt was read before him, he could expound on its may benefits.’” End quote.
Al-Hafiz al-Munthiri is reported to have passed away in the year 656H, may Allah have mercy with him and exalt his rank.
Then it should be mentioned, that al-Hafiz al-Munthiri, with all of his great attributes as mentioned above, was know to be lenient in his grading of hadiths. This is most noted in his great and invaluable precious work: At-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb. For those interested in researching this last point further in Arabic, it is recommend that they read the details that Shaikh Nasir, may Allah have mercy with him, mentioned in his introduction to Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb.]
What follows is the translation of the text, the headings were added and bracketed.
In then Name of Allah, the Beneficent the Merciful, and may Allah mention our master Muhammad, his family and his Companions.
[The Questions]
What do the master scholars, and the noble Imams, say about these expressions– which are used by the Imams of hadith regarding narrators – for example:
Yahya bin Ma`in, may Allah have mercy upon him says: “He is salih in hadith.” And Abu Hatim says: “His hadiths are written, but he is not used as a proof.” And the saying of Ahmad bin Hanbal: “He is trustworthy.” Another says: “He is truthful.”
So is their saying: “Trustworthy” the same as their saying: “His hadiths are written.”?
And what is the meaning of their saying: “His hadiths are written, but he is not used as a proof.”?
And what is the distinction between their saying: “He is not used as a proof” and “He is abandoned in hadith.”?
And, when one of them says: “So-and-so is trustworthy” and another says: “He is nothing” whose saying is taken among them?
If it is said that: “He is nothing” is taken over one who said: “He is trustworthy”, then we have seen narrators in the Six Books upon which the scholars of Islam depend about whom such disagreement occurred.
For example: Muhammad bin Ishaq. For Shu`bah and Sufyan said about him: “The Commander of the Believers in Hadith” – according to what Ibn Mahdi reported from them. And Malik bin Anas and Yahya bin Sa`id have both criticized him.
Yahya bin Ma`in was asked about him, and he said: “Trustworthy, and he is not a proof” and another time he said: “He is truthful, but he is not a proof. The proof is only in `Ubaidullah bin `Umar, and Malik bin Anas.”
Ahmad bin Hanbal said about him: “If a man said: ‘Indeed Muhammad bin Ishaq is a proof’ then he is not correct, but he is trustworthy.’”
And Ya`qub bin Shaibah said: “I asked Yahya bin Ma`in, saying: ‘How is Muhammad bin Ishaq according to you?’ He said: ‘He is not that in my view’ and he did not indicate that he was reliable, he indicated that he was weak. But he did not say that he was very weak. So I said: ‘So you feel something in yourself regarding his truthfulness? He said: ‘No. He was truthful.’”
So how should these statements be understood considering that he is in reports in the depended upon books? And Ibn `Adi said:
“If Ibn Ishaq did not have any virtue except that he turned the kings away from preoccupation with books that are of no benefit to preoccupation with the Maghazi (military expeditions) of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wa alaa aalihi wa sallam) and his advent and the beginning of creation, this would be a virtue in which Ibn Ishaq preceded others. Then, those who came after him authored (concerning the Maghazi,etc.) and they did not reach the station of Ibn Ishaq in it. And I searched his many hadiths and I did not find any that could be certainly graded as weak, and maybe he erred or made a mistake in one thing then another. And the reliable ones and the Imams did not hold back from relating from him, and there is no harm in him.”
These are the expressions used by Ibn `Adi about him. And this disagreeing causes confusion.
Similarly, with Shabaabah bin Sawwaar. Al-Bukhari, Muslim and others among the Imams recorded narrations of his in their books. While Abu Hatim said about him: “He is truthful, his hadiths are written, and he is not used as a proof.”
‘Abdur-Rahman bin Yusuf bin Khiraash said: “Ahmad bin Hanbal was not pleased by him.”
It was said to Yahya bin Ma`in: “Is Shabaabah liked more to you, or al-Aswad bin ‘Aamir?” So he said: “Shababah.” And he also said: “He is truthful.”
Ibn Sa`id said: “He was trustworthy, salih al-amr in hadith, except that he was a Murji’.”
This Shabaabah has been reported from, by Ishaq bin Rahuyah, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Ma`in, Abu Khaithamah, Ahmad bin Sinan Al-Qattaan, and personalities other than them.
So what does this disagreement about him mean? Upon whose saying does one depend? How is criticism of a person accepted without explanation, and when is such criticism without explanation cut off? What is the reason for accepting the criticism of these Imams without explanation while leaving [the opinion of] other than them?
And is the differences among these Imams the same as differences among the fuqaha’? If the answer is yes, then it is said that disagreement results from ijtihaad, while this contains nothing but reports, for a person can not be truthful and a liar at the same time. And it is said about a group of reporters that “they are nothing” while we find their hadiths in al-Bukhari, Muslim and others. So what is the meaning of their saying: “So-and-so is nothing”? And do these expressions have some meaning other than the apparent one? And is their saying: “So-and-so is a proof” the same as their saying: “He is truthful”?
Like Shujaa` bin al-Waleed Abu Qais as-Sakuni [this is a mistake from the publisher or copier, it should be Shujaa` bin al-Waleed bin Qais as-Sakuni]. Abu Hammaam al-Waleed bin Shujaa`, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Muslim bin Ibrahim, Yahya bin Ma`in, Abu `Ubaid Al-Qaasim bin Sallaam, Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah bin Numayr, Ishaq bin Rahuyah, ‘Ali bin Al-Madini, and others among the Imams report from him.
Abu Hatim said concerning him: “`Abdullah bin Bakr as-Sahmi is more beloved to me than Shujaa` bin al-Waleed, and he is a shaykh, he is not that strong, and his hadith is not used as a proof.”
Abu Bakr Al-Marwazi said: “I asked Ahmad bin Hanbal: ‘Is Shujaa` bin al-Waleed trustworthy?’ He said: ‘I hope that he is truthful, for some of the righteous have sat with him.’”
Waki‘ said: “I heard Sufyan saying: ‘There is no one in al-Kufah who worships more than him.’”
Hanbal bin Ishaq said: “Abu ‘Abdullah [al-Imam Ahmad] said: ‘He was a righteous shaykh, truthful, we write from him.’ He said: ‘Yahya bin Ma`in met him one day so he said: ‘O liar! So the shaykh said to him: ‘Either I am a liar, or Allah will destroy you.’”
And it has been reported that Yahya bin Ma`in also said about him: “He is trustworthy.”
And Ahmad bin Hanbal said: “No harm in him.”
So look at these differences about him, yet al-Bukhari, Muslim, at-Tirmithi, Abu Dawud, an-Nasa’i, and Ibn Majah record narrations from him.
How can this be done by these Imams who are taken as an example while it has been stipulated regarding hadith that it be “a report of a just precise narrator from a just, precise narrator reaching to Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam)” as Ibn as-Salah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said in his book on ‘Ulum al-Hadith, as well as others besides him.
And if this stipulation is not that which is treaded upon by those who know the condition of the two Shaykhs [al-Bukhari and Muslim], and perhaps you – may Allah reward you – may explain the condition of the two Sahihs [of al-Bukhari and Muslim] so that the benefit may be complete – if Allah wills – by your blessing. So provide clarity with what you have of knowledge. May Allah benefit the Muslims by you. And may he grant you the company of the pure and righteous. Amin, Amin.
And may Allah make mention of Muhammad, the Unlettered Prophet, and his family and all his Companions. And may he grant the most complete, abundant peace.
[The Answers]
So the Shaykh, the Imam, al-Hafiz, al-`Allamah Zaki ad-Deen, Abu Muhammad `Abdul-`Azim bin Abdul-Qawwi bin `Abdullah al-Munthiri ash-Shafi`i, may Allah be pleased with him, wrote in response to the questions mentioned:
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful, and may Allah make mention of Muhammad and his family and grant complete peace.
As to what follows, praising Allah, the High, the Great, and sending salah upon the best of his creation Muhammad, the Noble Prophet, and his family and his Companions and his followers who are worthy of preference and eminence.
[The Levels Of al-Jarh and at-Ta`deel According to Ibn Abi Hatim]
I have seen what you have indicated – may Allah make the benefit taken from you all to be continuous and may He guard you in the most excellent manner, and may He cause you to always take the most beautiful of positions. And I have besought from Allah (subhaanahu wa ta’aalaa) earnestly that He encompass all of us with the blessings from the Chief of the Messengers, may Allah make mention of him and his family and grant him peace as well as them.
So here I mention before that, what shall be an answer to some of what you have mentioned, and a facilitation for some of it, hoping from Allah for firmness upon what is correct in speech and action, and seeking refuge in him from errors and slips, for whatever He wishes, He does.
Al-Hafiz Abu Muhammad al-Qasim bin al-Hafiz `Ali bin al-Hasan ad-Dimashqi informed us in his letter to me in which he said: “Al-Hafiz Abu Tahir Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad informed us in his letter to me from the port of Alexandria saying: ‘`Abu Maktum `Isa bin al-Hafiz Abu Tharr `Abd bin Ahmad al-Harawi informed us, by permission, saying: “My father related to me, saying: ‘Abu `Ali Hamd bin `Abdullah al-Asbahaani related to us saying: “Al-Imam Abu Muhammad `Abdur-Rahman bin Abu Hatim Muhammad bin Idris al-Hanzali said: ‘I found that the expressions about al-jarh and at-ta`deel are of different levels:
A. Levels of at-Ta`deel
When they say about someone that he is trustworthy, or mutqin, thabt (precise, reliable), then he is one whose hadiths are used as a proof.
When they say “he is truthful” or, “his place is truthfulness” or “no harm in him” then he is one whose hadiths are written, and he is to be looked into, this is the second rank.
When they say: “Shaykh” then he is of the third rank, his hadiths are written, and he is looked into, but he is lower than the second.
When they say: “salih al-hadith” then his hadiths are written for i‘tibaar (the expressions they contain).
B. Levels of al-Jarh
When they reply about a man: “feeble in hadith” then he is among those whose hadiths are written and looked into for i`tibaar.
When they say: “he is not strong” then he is like the first level regarding writing his hadiths, yet he is lower than him.
When they say: “weak in hadith” then he is less than the second, his hadiths are not disregarded, rather they are used for i`tibaar.
When they say: “abandoned in hadith” or “thaahib al-hadith” or “liar” then his hadiths are dropped, his hadiths are not written, and this is the fourth level.’”
This is what Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned about what he found regarding their expressions.
[Is Their Saying: “A Proof” Stronger Than Their Saying: “Trustworthy”]
Yahya bin Ma`in said about Muhammad bin Ishaq: “Trustworthy, but he is not a proof” it appears that his view is that being trustworthy is less than being a proof. And this contradicts what is mentioned from most of them about that.
[The Response of Ad-Daraqutni About Their Saying: “So-and so- is feeble” and about one who has many mistakes]
Abu Hafs ‘Umar bin Muhammad bin Ma`mar al-Baghdadi informed us in ad-Dimashq saying: “Al-Wazeer al-Ajl Abu al-Qaasim `Ali bin Naqeeb an-Nuqabaa’ Abu al-Fawaaris Tiraad bin Muhammad az-Zainabi informed us, saying: ‘Abu al-Qasim Isma`il bin Mas`adah al-Jurjani informed us – and ash-Shaykh Abu al-Fadhl Ja`far bin `Ali al-Muqri’ informed us, and the wording is his, saying: “Al-Hafiz Abu Taahir Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad informed us saying: ‘Al-Hafiz Abu Nasr Al-Mu’taman bin Ahmad as-Saaji informed us saying: “Abu al-Qaasim Isma`il bin Mas`adah informed us saying: ‘I heard Abu al-Qaasim Hamzah bin Yusuf as-Sahmi al-Hafiz saying: “I asked Abu al-Hasan ad-Daraqutni, saying to him: ‘When it is said: “So-and-so is feeble” what is meant by that?’ He said: ‘He is not dropped and abandoned in hadith, but he was criticized with something that does not drop his attribute of being just.’ And I asked him about one who has many mistakes. He said: ‘If they told him about that and he returned from that, then he is not dropped, and if he did not return, then he is dropped.’”
Al-Aseel Abu al-Muzaffar `Abdur-Raheem bin al-Hafiz Abu Sa`d `Abdul-Karim bin al-Hafiz Abu Bakr Muhammad bin al-Imam Abu al-Muzaffar Mansur bin Muhammad as-Sam`aani informed us in his letter to me from Khurasaan saying: “Al-Imam Abu Bakr ‘Ubaydullah bin Ibrahim at-Taftazaani informed me in Nasa’ in Shawwal of the year 544H saying: ‘Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Jurjaani informed me saying: “Abu Shurayh Isma`il bin Ahmad ash-Shaashi informed us: ‘Abu al-Hasan `Ali bin Muhammad al-Maydaani informed us saying: “Abu Sa`d Abdur-Rahman bin al-Hasan bin Alayyik informed us” – so he mentioned issues which he asked the Ustaath, Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin Muhammad al-Isfaraa’eeni about, among them:
“When one hears from his shaykhs that a person is not trustworthy in hadith, or he sees that in the books of the Huffaz, is he to judge by their criticism in taqleed of them? And is he of those who backbite or not.”
The reply: “When he hears it from his shaykhs then that is jarh, and not taqleed in his jarh. Because this is his proof and his evidence. He does not judge by something that he finds in the books, unless that is something he heard from individuals among the people of hadith.”
[The Disagreements of The People Of Knowledge About the Ta`deel of Men And Grading them Weak]
The Shaykhs Abu Hafs `Umar bin Ma`mar bin Muhammad al-Baghdadi, and Abu al-Hasan `Ali bin Nasr al-Waasiti, and Abu al-Fadhl Muhammad bin Yusuf an-Nu`maani – and the wording is his – informed us saying: “Abu al-Qaasim `Abdul-Malik bin Abu Sahl related to us saying: ‘Abu `Aamir Mahmud bin al-Qaasim and Abu Bakr al-Ghawrja informed us saying: “Abu Muhammad al-Jaraahi informed us: ‘Abu al-Abbas bin Mahbub informed us:
“Al-Imam Abu `Isa Muhammad bin `Isa at-Tirmithi informed us saying: ‘The Imams among the people of knowledge differed in grading men weak, just like they differed in other areas of knowledge.’” This is the end of his statement.
1. Their Disagreements About Accepting The Report Of an Innovator
The people of knoweldge differed in the case of the people of innovations like the Qadariyyah, the Rawaafidh, and the Khawaarij.
A group of them said: “Their hadiths are not used as a proof altogether.”
Some of them held the view of accepting the reports of the people of desires who were not known to consider as lawful lying or bearing witness for those who agreed with them for what they did not witness.
A group followed the view of accepting the non-caller among the people of desires. As for the caller, then his narrations are not to be used as a proof.
Some of them [followed the view] that his hadiths are accepted when they do not contain anything that supports their innovation.
2. Their Differences Over The Necessary Number For Verification Or Disparagement
They also differed over setting conditions on the number of those praising and disparaging, and witnesses and reporters.
A. So some of them made a number of them a condition.
B. Some of them said they are not subject to a condition, even though when bearing witness, it is better to give precedence to the number of those who praise.
C. Some of them said: It is a condition for testimony, but not for narrators. Because the number is not a condition for accepting information. So it can not be a condition for narrators, contrary to testifying witnesses, for in the case of accepting testimony and judging accordingly there are conditions. So it is a condition in testimony.
3. Their Differences over accepting Explanative and Vague Criticism
They also differed over the criticism, when what the criticism is not explained.
Among them are those who said: The crticism is not accepted without explanation.
Among them are those who said: The critic does not need to explain except when it is general and the criticism would not be recognized. But when the criticism is known then it does not need to be explained.
Muhammad bin Ishaq in the View of the People of Knowledge
The Imams have discussed him a great deal in two ways: praise and censure. As for al-Bukhari and Muslim, they did not use him as a proof at all in their Sahihs. Muslim only recorded some hadiths of his as follow up narrations, not foundational narrations.
In this way al-Bukhari also did not record anything it all from him as a foundation. He only mentioned him in supporting narrations, following their custom regarding those whose hadiths are not used as a proof. As al-Bukhari did with Abu Az-Zubair Al-Makki, Suhail bin Abi Saalih and their like. And as Muslim did with `Ikrimah the freed slave of Ibn `Abbas, Shareek bin `Abdullah al-Qaadhi and their like.
Abu Bakr Ahmad bin ‘Ali al-Khateeb said: “More than one of the scholars have refrained from using narrations of Ibn Ishaq as proof for various reasons: Among them that he was accused of Shi‘i tendancies and the topic of qadr, and he committed tadlees in his narrations. As for his truthfulness, it is not enough to defend him.”
Sulaiman bin Dawud said: “Yahya bin Sa`id Al-Qattaan said to me: ‘I testify that Muhammad bin Ishaq lies.’” He said: “I said: ‘How do you know?’ He said: ‘Wuhaib bin Khaalid said to me: “Indeed he lies.” He said: ‘I said to Wuhaib: “How do you know?” He said: “Malik bin Anas said to me: ‘I testify that he lies.’ I said to Malik: How do you know? He said: Hishaam bin ‘Urwah said to me: “I testify that he lies.” I said to Hishaam: “How do you know?” He said: “He narrated from my wife Faatimah bint al-Munthir. But she came to me when she was nine years old, and no man saw her until she met Allah.”
`Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal said: “So my father narrated hadiths of Ibn Ishaq and said: ‘As for Hishaam’s rebuke of him, perhaps he came and sought persmision from her and she permitted him’ – and I think he said – ‘and did not inform him.’”
Imam Ahmad said another time: “It is possible that such hearing occurred when she went out to the Masjid or, she went out and he heard her. And Allah knows best.”
‘Ali bin al-Madeeni said: “What Hishaam said is not a proof. Perhaps he visited his wife when he was a boy and heard from her.”
So whoever avoided using the narrations of Ibn Ishaq it is to be understood that he abandoned him due to the issue of qadr or Shi’i tendencies, or due to tadlees in the case of those who held the view that this was disparaging. Or, it could have been due to this or other criticisms concerning him, even though this may not be a proof to him for rejecting his hadiths. But it may have created a doubt which prevented him from using him as a proof, and this has been indicated by the two Hafiz’s Ahmad bin Ibrahim al-Jurjaani and Ahmad bin ‘Ali al-Khatteeb.
For those who used his narrations as proof, then it implies that he did not see that innvoation was a preventive factor, nor tadlees. As for the story of Hishaam, it has been replied to. And, [they would have determined] that the criticism regarding him is not clarified and is not of consequence in his view. And also, that which came from one person – while he made the number a condition – then it was not of consqeunce in his view. And Allah azza wa jall knows best.
Shabaabah bin Sawwaar in the View of the People of Knowledge
Al-Bukhari and Muslim used his narrations in their Sahihs and three of the Imams narrated from him, and some of them criticized him. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal said: “I have abandoned him, I do not report from him due to irja’.” They said: “O Abu ‘Abdullah! What about Abu Mu‘aawiyah?” He said: “Shabaabah was a caller.”
The narration of Shabaabah that he reports from Shu‘bah concerning ad-dubba’ [gourd: but it means a type of container made from gourd used for khamr] was mentioned to ‘Ali bin al-Madini, so he said: “What are we able to do about this one – meaning Shabaabah – he was a shaykh, truthful, except that he expressed the view of irja’, and a man who heard from another man a thousand or two thousand [hadiths] is not to be rejected because he narrated a [single] gharib hadith.”
Abu Bakr Ahmad al-Jurjaani said: “That which is that rejected regarding him is the error, perhaps he narrated it from memory.” [In al-Kaamil, al-Jurjaani, who is Ibn `Adi, said: “Just as `Ali bin al-Madeeni said: ‘That which is rejected regarding him is the error…’”]
They said to Abu Zur‘ah about Abu Mu‘aawiyah: “He had the view of irja’?” He said: “Yes! He used to call to it.” They said: “The same for Shabaabah bin Sawwaar?” He said: “Yes.” They said: “He recanted from that?” He said: “Yes! He said: Faith is speech and action.’”
So this is Imam Ahmad making it clear that he only abandoned him because he was a caller to irja’. And this is ‘Ali bin al-Madeeni who did not see that his saying of irja’ and his lone narrations were applicable in his case, and error is something that almost no one is exempt from. So whoever used his narrations as a proof, then he saw that irja’, calling to it, and having lone narrations, were things that did not destroy him, especially when it has been reported that he recanted from irja’.
Whoever did not use his narrations as proof, then it is because he saw that these were barriers against using him, and this resulted in his doubt about him, and halting from using him as a proof, as preceded. And Allah azza wa jall knows best.
[Are the Disagreements of the Muhaditheen in Jarh and Ta`deel Similar to The Disagreements of the Fuqaha’ in Issues of Fiqh?]
The disagreement of these people is like the disagreement of the fuqaha’, all of that is determined through ijtihaad. So in the case of the judge, when he is given damaging testimony about a person, he makes ijtihaad with whether that is applicable or not. Like that, the muhaddith, when he wants to use the narrations of a person as proof, and criticism about him is conveyed to him, he makes ijtihaad with it, determining whether it is applicable or not. The criticisms about him may be a disparagement in his view, depending on the explanation of the criticism or the lack thereof, or depending upon the condition of the numbers, as is the case with the faqih. There is no difference whether the criticizer is informing the muhaddith himself or reporting to him from someone else by his route, and Allah azza wa jall knows best.
Shujaa` bin al-Waleed In The View of the People of Knowledge
As for Shujaa` bin al-Waled Abu Badr, al-Bukhari and Muslim in their Sahihs, and a group of authors used him as proof. His condition with respect to worship and righteousness is well known.
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal said, in a story mentioning him: “He would only say to us: ‘Sulaiman bin Mihraan mentioned it’ and he did not say: ‘Al-A`mash’ and ‘Mugheerah mentioned it’ and “Sa‘eed bin Abi ‘Arubah mentioned it’ and he would almost never say to us: ‘It was narrated to us’ Then after that he used to say: ‘So and so narrated to us, and Musa bin ‘Uqbah informed us.’ While earlier he would not say anything to us but ‘he mentioned it.’”
Waki‘ bin al-Jarraah was asked about Abu Badr Shujaa` bin al-Waleed, so he said: “He was our neighbor here. We do not know of him to be with ‘Ata’ bin as-Sa’ib nor with al-Mugheerah.” While others besides him mentioned that he narrated from them. He was criticized for the narration of the hadith of Salman al-Farsi, may Allah be pleased with him, about hatred of the ‘Arabs and it is a munkar hadith. [“O Salmaan! Do not hate me and leave your religion” “And how would I hate you O Messenger of Allah! While it is by you that Allah has guided us?” “By hating the ‘Arabs you would be hating me.” Musnad At-Tayalisi, Ahmad At-Tirmithi, al-Hakim]
And the hadith of Shareek from Abu Husain about the pebbles and their munaashidah [“Indeed the pebbles supplicate to Allah against the one who removes them from the Masjid” Abu Dawud, al-Bayhaqi and others.] is taken from him in marfu‘ form while it is mawquf.
So for the one who used his hadiths as a proof, he did not see that any of this prevented using his narrations as a proof. It is possible that it be said that he mentioned his hearing [a narration] after that, so he is clear in narrating the hadith, or that a reporter may be being zealous one time, so he gave a chain, and not as concerned another time, so he did not give a chain, and he did not mention a person one time, while he mentioned him another, as circumstances dictated.
Whoever refrained from using his narrations as proof, then that was a result on his part of that shortcoming, even if the criticism was not affirmed in his case. Still, he stopped short of using him because of that. And Allah azza wa jall knows best.
What Is the Meaning of Their Statement: “So And So Is Nothing”?
As for their saying: “so-and-so is nothing” and they say another time: “His narrations are nothing” then he is to be looked into. So if the one that this is said about has been graded trustworthy and used as a proof by some one other than the one saying this, then it implies that he means that none of his narrations are used as a proof, but to him, his narrations are written for i`tibaar, as supporting witnesses, and other than that.
If the one they say that about is well know to be weak and there is none among the Imams found to consider his case as good, then that implies that his hadiths are not to be used as a proof nor for i`tibaar nor as supporting witnesses. This is akin to matrook [abandoned]. And Allah azza wa jall knows best.
[The Criteria of the Two Shaykhs]
As for the criteria of the Two Shaykhs, it has been mentioned by the Imams about al-Bukhari and Muslim that it has not been reported from either one of them that he said: “I stipulated that I record in my book what agrees with such and such criteria,” that is only known from probing into their books and pondering over what they recorded.
There are various replies to this matter from the Imams, some of them said it is the musnad hadith whose chain is connected by the report of a just, precise narrator from a just, precise narrator until its end.
And if it is said to him: “He reported in the Sahih from so-and-so” and, “such and such has been said about him?” He says: He is a just, precise narrator in the view of the one who used him as a proof in his Sahih, and what has been said concerning him is responded to with similar to that which we have previously mentioned, and Allah azza wa jall knows best.
The last of it is: praise to Allah as He deserves to be praised, and His Salawaat upon His chosen one from His creation, Muhammad, His Prophet and His worshipper, and upon his family and his Companions after him, and may He grant them peace most abundantly. And Allah is the one who suffices us, and He is the best Disposer of Affairs
Replyboriqee
12-29-2006, 01:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
FollowingAlhuda
Wa Aleikomo Salaam,
Baraka Allaho fiek for this information. Many Muslims do not know anything about this! But i will Insha Allah restore the information on my computer. I have heard of this science from a sister that practise longer than me.
Is it so brother that if a Alim gave a Djarh to a da'ee or antoher Alim. Do you accept this Djarh right away after reading the prooven djarh? Or do you think i can get my knowledge from whom i want.
It is important that we get the right knowledge. May people that get a djarh, their Aqeedah ans Manhadj (not madhab) is not correct. However, the Selef never had igtilaaf about this issue. You can have igtilaaf consurning fiqh issues.
Anyway could you anwser this question???
Wassalam
dear sister
I would have to write a post much longer than those two combined to clearly present the matter.
In reality this issue was brought to the west for no reason other than to defame people by certain ghulaat (extremists) whom I was a part of.
The reality is jarh wa t'adeel is not wahi, it was nto revealed from Allah to the one maing jarh or t'adeel. Thus whoever says anything is not a hujjah on the people, and it only constitues as a proof based on the entirty of ahlu-sunnah in acceptance of it, like for example, the salafi Imaams like Shafi'ee Ahmad, IbnAbi Hatim and many other Imaams regarding the raafidha shi'a.
So as an usool, jarh must be accepted over t'adeel that is mujmal or general, but that is not absolute. that is because if we were to make it absolute, then we would have to by defualt abandon Imaam al-Bukharee and call hjim jahmi and a mubtadi. That is because Imaam al-Bukahree did not die leaving the impression we have of him in our times to the minds o the muslims back in his time, bee the Imaam of Jarh wa t'adeel Muhammad Bin Yahya had made detailed jarh of Bukharee which annuled whatever praise he received. Bukharee's life during his last days was a living hell to he point that he made dua to Allah to take him away and within a month Allah accepted his call.
Every town turned him out because everyone accepted the jarh of Muhammad Bin Yahya that Bukharee was a Jahmee.
The same type of incidents apply to other people throughout the eras.
Yet in ourtime the jarh of Bukhare is not accepted Why? because jarh and t'adeel is not absolute. The best way i coul say it is that is is almost absolute, by since no one is the prophet, then it can never be bsolute because men, even if they enumerate to 100, err, and as such then their statements could be accepted or rejected.
secondyl, it is wrong to say "the salaf never had ikhtilaaf" on jarh wa t'adeel. In fact it is insane to think so. This could only be said in ignroance why?
examples
1. lim didnt ACCEPT JARH OF bUKHARE FROM Muhammad Bin Yahya, hwoever to avouid fitnah he did not use Bukharee for his sahih which makes their agreement on a hadeeth all the more stronger
2. They differed about Muhammad Ibnu-Kullab, due to his parting in kalaam as a mutakalim only to defending the sunnah agaisnt the mutazilah
In fact books of jarh wa t'adeel are filled with "So and so said he is this, and I say no he is this" etc etc etc.
The people who propagae the idea that the salaf never had ikhtilaaf with regard to jarh wa t'adeel is a liar and deceiving and decieving others.
The issue is major, one would have to be a specialist and not all specialist attain a rank of accurateness or acumen in the field. there is no one in our time of this calibur, and the only one who has come close to this acumen was Imaam al-Albani. As for Shaykh rabee BinHdee, Al-=Albanee said about him "he is the flag carier of Jarh wa t'adeel" . he did not say he was "Imaam" of jarh wa t'adeel as som extremists morons assume. And his statement was meant in the light that he,. Shaykh rabee, is known for making jarh and t'adeel. Thats it. It did not carry the canotation that he was its specialist.
example of current day matter
Abu hasan al-M'arabi, is a scholar from Yemen who studied under shaykh Muqbil who was the most prominent of his students.
Rabee made jarh of Ma'rabi due to mashaykh in yemen having disdain for him. They brough case to Rabee, he made jarh. 30 other mashayikh follow hiim in jarh including Najmee.
Other mashaykh
Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbadd, Saalih al-fawzaan, Saalih ali-Shaykh and the rest o the major shcolars whos rank outrank the ulema who agree with the jarh, have not accepted jarh.
do we reject jarh based on the mashaikh who dont accept it have way more knowledge than those who do. is that our criterion. No
Dop we accept the jarh based on the assumption that those mashaykh "know" al-M'arabi's condition more so than the major scholars.
The second reason is more closer to the truth. HOWEVER. that is not the overiding factor. the overiding factor is
1. whether he changed or not
ifg he did not change
The book he was condmened for by shaykh Rabee is calld "Siraaj al-Wahaj". This book if you read the initial praises of scholars who actually reas it and found nothing wrong with it, then the names on its attestification are
Albanee
Bin baz
Uthaymeen
Abdur-Rahman al-Ghudayaan
and a couple other major heavy weight scholars, who found nothin wrong with it, yet Shaykh rabee found everythn wrong with it, and not when these three were alive, but once they passed away.
So now it is acclaimed that al-M'ARABI CHANGED HIS WAYS waiting for the deaths of these three top pass and for his shaykh Muqbil to pass in order to 'reveal his sinister plot against ahlu-sunnah'.
Here is another factor. the very views that Shaykh rabee condmened Ma'aribi for are detialed matters of hadeeth, and quite surprisinly he follows Al-Albanee's manhaj, his views are based on Albnee's views, yet Albanee is not criticised by M'arabi is.
part of the science of jarh wa t'adeel is looking into the the affair of the one who is making jarh wa t'adeel.
We already know the wonderful nature of our Shaykhj Rabee, yet Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbad, who is rabee's Shaykh said "he has a desire against him" meaning that Shaykh Rab'ees jarh of Abu hasan is due to a matter of desire of wishing to defame him. if one examines his jarh of M'arabi, it is easily detectable.
Secondly, Shaykh Rabee, may Alah reward him and aid him, is known to "flip flop' for lack of better words. he would admit something for example to Shaykh Ali and Shaykh Saleem al-Hilalee, and then later away from their presense, turn back from his agreed on position to the two shaykhs nd this has happened multiple times.
The matters of jarh wa t'adeel is intircate and this science entails examining all of the affairs at hand in a particular matter whcih makes the science so unique in nature and so complicated even for a mutakhasis (specialist)
so after weighing the evidences
then if it is true that M'arabi teaches from Milestones from Sayyid Qutb, praises Zindanee, and the most famous one, Tamyee and whatever else his enemies use against him, then if it is true, then he is someone who should not be taken fom and he is one who has issues in the application of the salafi manhaj by which no one should take from him.
if these accusations agsinat him are mis representations of the true reality of what he is doing, then their jarh is rendered useless.
While i view some of these accusations as false or a exxageration, there are some errors whcih he has that must be corrected, but is not to warrent anyone to call him mubtadi or even the sulaimani dajjal.
so i hope this clarifies a little
asalamu alaikum
ReplyPowered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.