FORMALISM IN HADITH

The Messenger of Allah, had repeatedly asserted and stressed, “Whosoever, on purpose (some say the words, ‘on purpose’, are a later addition in this tradition. Tolu-e-Islam) falsifies my statements, is inviting hellfire for himself.” This tradition has been narrated by ever so many a disciple that because of it some hadith authorities have declared it Muta’water. Inspite of this warning from the Messenger, we descry there existed some who distorted and falsified hadith in the lifetime of the Messenger. Mulla Ali Qari, we find in ‘Mau’zoo’at e Kabeer’ has written:

“In a distance of two miles from Medina, someone by the name of Hyye Bani Lace, sent a matrimonial message to a woman. Mentors of the woman accepted this wedding invitation. This person wore a hullah (garment in Islamic folklore worn in paradise) similar to that of the Messenger, and went there, claiming the Messenger had bestowed the hullah to him, and he also had granted him the authority to say whatever he may please, about their women. On learning that Muhammad^PBUH the Messenger had given the folks of the locality, these orders, they bowed their heads in submission. They gave this person a place to stay, and in the meantime, sent two of their men to verify, on what this man claimed himself to be. When the Messenger came to know about it, he was very displeased and extremely annoyed. He ordered the fellow to be executed and then incinerated. Upon reaching there, the Messenger’s soldiers found the guy had already died of snake bite and so they burnt his body and came back.”

Sheikh Zahir Jazai’ri writes in his book ‘Tau’jeeh ul Nzarali ul Asul ul Asar,’ on page 246:

“The Messenger was falsified in his very lifetime, and that there were hypocrites and heretics present in the period of his confreres.”

DAYS OF DISCIPLES:

The Messenger had categorically stated: 

“Do not have me dictate anything save the Quran, whosoever has written anything other than the Quran, must erase it.”

The rationale behind this, given by the scholars of religion was, the Messenger said these words, so the Quran may not become a conglomerate. But this cannot be true, as the Messenger could also have said, to write the ahadith and Quran separately. The actual purpose of his having said thus, was because people may not involve themselves in traditions. As we know, when traditions begin to prevail, there remains no discrimination between true or false.

We observe, during the reign of the first Caliph Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq^R, there began a controversy among people, over the traditions. When it came in the knowledge of Caliph, he said after making them assemble,

“Today you all contradict the traditions, there will come a time when you all will contradict each other even more fanatically. Therefore, do not quote the Messenger.” (refer to Tz’kara tul Hif’aaz by Imam Zuhby)

Hazrat Abu Bakr^R also had a personal collection of 500 ahadith in Hazrat Aisha^R’s possession. Thinking later, he may have inadvertently confirmed a false statement of the Messenger, he got the collection back from her and made a bonfire of it. (Ibid)

We cannot say for sure, if his whole collection was based on hearsay; as he was Messenger’s personal companion, and so had the privilege of listening to him personally. There could therefore be no doubt in his personal ahadith. Just because he had observed, the arguments over traditions with his own eyes, in his capacity as a Caliph, having forbidden everybody from writing the traditions, he did not assume it safe to leave behind any collection of traditions.

We also read in Sahih Bokhari from Abu Huraira^R, that Amru bin Aas also had a collection of sayings of Messenger in his possession. We have no knowledge of it today with us, whether it vanished in thin air or was it also incinerated, like Hazrat Abu Bakr^R did. All these precautions were taken due to the menace of hypocrites. What they explained, was absolutely different from what they had heard. In the period of the disciples, after the passing away of Messenger, there were also agnostics along with hypocrites in existence. It was also because of this reason, Abu Bakr^R laid a prohibition on traditions. While those traditions, which he listened from the disciples, he demanded guarantors or witnesses. Later Caliph Hazrat Omar^R was more strict; he banned anyone from involving themselves in traditions. In spite of these preventive measures and precautions, these traditions could not be ceased from spreading. We find that where on the one hand, we get authentic explanations, we also on the other hand get those traditions that have been fabricated. Thus, we read in Sahih Muslim, when Basheer bin Ka’ab began to explain ahadith in front of Hazrat Ibne Abbas^R, he paid no attention to him. Basheer asked the reason for his not paying him any attention. Hazrat Abbas^R replied, there was a time when they were all ears at the mention of Muhammad’s name. Ever since people began to fabricate tales and stories, they have given up on Hadith.

This was also the reason, the respected disciples had given up narrating ahadith. Ibne abi Laila asked Zaid bin Arqa’an to narrate any hadith he was in knowledge of. Zaid replied that he had grown old and had forgotten. Abdullah requested his father Hazrat Zubair ^R, to tell him of any saying of the Messenger that he knew. He also gave the same reply. Sa’ib bin Yazid says that he journeyed from Medina to Mecca with Hazrat Sa’ad bin Malik, he did not hear a single tradition from him. Imam Saabi says that he lived for one year with Hazrat Omar ^R. In that period he never heard any hadith from his lips.

 

POST DISCIPLES ERA:

After the era of disciples, we notice a huge increase in the number of hadith narrators as well as fabricators. Allama Ibn Joz’ee states the following causes for the indiscriminate spread of hadith:

1.                  Some people because of their carelessness distorted the version.

2.                  Some scholars lost their memory with age; after taxing their minds, they spoke whatever they could remember.

3.                  Many trustworthy narrators, because of old age mental deficiency, spoke of incorrect traditions.

4.                  Among them were also some, who inadvertently told incorrect traditions. When their mistakes were brought to their knowledge, these people considered it beyond their dignity to do anything about these wrong traditions.

5.                  The Aj’mees (Those who became Muslims, though inwardly they were against Islam. Their number was not any less during the Abbasid period) made numerous counterfeit and fake ahadith, that proved destructive to the principles of Islam. In their ostensible eulogy, they were proving the Shar’iah incorrect, deleting the ayaat of Quran and portraying the character of Muhammad^PBUH as weak.

6.                  Religious bifurcations commenced and new sects came into existence. Like Shi’ites, Sunnis, Qadris, Jehemy, Muz’jiya, Mo’tzilla et all. Each one of these made up their own hadith, that praised their own sect and was against all others.

7.                  Many good people also made ahadith with a good and a holy morale in it.

8.                  Many thought it was granted to attribute wise adages to the Messenger and then have them attested as traditions. It is written in Tz’kara tul Mau’zoo’at that one hadithist gave up this profession in his old age and cautioned others to scrutinize ahadith before accepting them, as people were in the habit of including everything, that which suited their temperament, in Deen.

9.                  The favorites of later Caliphs and Ameers, made traditions and used them as means of getting closer to top officials.

10.              Professional orators and storytellers, attributed various stories to Messenger and made capitol on it.

These were the ten causes because of which false and fabricated ahadith spread among the Muslims. Above and beyond all these, the damage caused by political groups, who wanted to win the hearts of voters, by using Islam was also devastating. They made and concocted ahadith and spread it from east to west. And much more damage came from those who fabricated ahadith, to emboss their knowledge and tried to force respect, from the hearts of their people.

Sheikh Muhammad Tahir Gujrati writes in his book ‘Tz’kara tul Mau’zoo’at,’ a narrator gave up ahadith writing in his later years of life. He also now cautioned others from accepting any hadith or parable. As mentioned before, they made hadith on every subject, that was in accord with their wishes and they could lay their hands on. In other words, making hadith meant to attribute the story or gospel to Muhammad^PBUH.

There were others who falsified ahadith in broad daylight. Some made hadith to gain fame, and some were so naive, they actually thought, to fabricate hadith was an act of faith and jihad. We read in Biyazwi’s explanations and other books, Noah bin abi Maryam eulogized and made ahadith on every verse of the Quran. When the authorities of those times on hadith, demanded verification of those gospels, he admitted and said that he had fabricated ahadith to attract and persuade people towards Quran. The storytellers and orators were more daring and much more blunt. (After this the author, late Allama Jirajpuri, has copied those ahadith that were told by these orators and storytellers. Since these have been mentioned in the earlier chapter, we are therefore deleting the text here.)

 

SUBJECTS OF AHADITH:

The volume of narrators became so huge, that many a times their translations occupied twelve volumes. We can very well imagine the diversity of subjects that were covered by these narrators, in all these ahadith. Sheikh Muhammad Tahir Gujrati writes in Tz’kara tul Mau’zoo’at, that Jonbari, Ibne Akkasha and Muhammad bin Tameem Farabi together had made ten thousand ahadith. He writes about Ibne abi ul Au’jaa, when they went to execute him, he admitted of having fabricated four thousand ahadith. In those ahadith he gave religious sanctions on prohibited things and abjured those that were allowed or hallal.

Leaving aside the question of traditions, we find at times, these pseudo-narrators, that are from beginning to the end, full of totally fabricated ahadith, have authored complete books. On page #8 in Tz’kara tul Hifaaz it states:

            “In Hadith books we come across some, that contain totally fabricated ahadith. Among these books is one by Al Qadha’ee, and another is called Arba’uun au Da’aniya. We do not find a single correct hadith in any of them. In another book called Wasaya Ali, apart from its first hadith all the rest are concocted and homemade. The musnid of Ans Basri is a collection of three hundred ahadith that are all false and fabricated. Ibne Addi writes about Musa bin Jaffer, who wrote a book about his ancestors that was brought in the knowledge of Hazrat Ali^R. It was a collection of one thousand ahadith. After going through the whole collection, Dar Katni declared the book as concocted, totally false and disgraceful. He has attributed to Hazrat Ali^R, traditions, on coitus and methods of copulation in the book.”

Wilmy states about Abul Fazal Jaffer bin Muhammad Hussain’s book called ‘Al Uroos’, as irrelevant and blasphemous. And Imam Zuhby is of the opinion, the collection of traditions of Ibne As’haaq bin Ibraham, do not deserve any attention.

 

FALSE BOOKS ON HADITH:

When verifications began on ahadith, the scholars with critical acumen, sifted through the traditions. They compiled a collection of weak ahadith. The famous collections among these are called:

·        Kt’aab ul Abat’eel, by Abu Abdullah al Hussain Humadani, (died 546 hijra).

·        Al Mau’zoo’at ul Kibra, in four volumes, by Abul Frig Abdul Hama’an Jozee, (died 597 hijra).

·        Fil Ahadith ul Mau’zooah and                          , by Jalal uddin Sayyuti.

·        Tz’kara tul Mau’zoo’at, by Sheikh M. Tahir, famous hadithist from Gujrat, Pakpattan, Pakistan, (died 986 hijra).

·        Risalat’aan fil Mau’zoo’at, by Razi uddin Sa’naee, (died 652 hijra).

·        Al Fawa’yat al Majmu’ah, by Sheikh Abu Allah Muhammad Shami (died 942 hijra).

·        Fil Ahadith ul Mau’zoo’ah, by Imam Shaukani Yemeni, (died 1255 hijra).

·        Kt’aab ul Mughani, by Hafiz Zia uddin Moosali (died 623 hijra).

·        Al Mau’zoo’at tul Sariyya, by Omar bin Badar.

·        Al Kashif ul Ilahi, by Muhammad Sandarussi, (died 1177 hijra).

·        Tz’kara tul Mau’zoo’at, by Mulla Ali Qari (died 1014 hijra).

·        Al Lulu al Mar’sooah, by Muhammad bin Khalil Qauqchi, (died 1305 hijra).

Hadith suffered so much in the hands of these narrators, that it cannot even be imagined. The ahadith that were attributed to Muhammad^PBUH, ninety-nine percent belonged to his life in Medina that spans a length of ten years. The army of fake hadith makers had grown very large, they had nothing else to do but fabricate ahadith day in and day out. Most of these fabricators had adopted hadith making as their profession.

Thousands of these fake hadith makers made innumerable ahadith and spread them across continents. In this cyclone of fabrications and concoctions, we did have a few authentic ahadith, but it became impossible for the critics, or rather we can say, it was like looking for a needle in a haystack, to bring these genuine pearls in the limelight.

 

CRITIQUE ON HADITH:

When the scholars on hadith began to sift the conglomerate of right and wrong, they had two things on their minds. The first thing was the content of hadith and secondly, it was its preamble. To recognize false ahadith, these scholars formulated the following principles:

1.      That the hadith has false historical dates.

2.      Any traditions attributed to Rafzis (dissenters) against the Messengers companions, and Kharijites (those who drifted away from the mainstream) against the Ahle-bait (family members of the Messenger.)

3.      That many narrators are explaining the circumstances of this hadith, but in reality the tradition goes only by one name.

4.      That it goes against the Quran.

5.      That it is against reason or common sense.

6.      That it promises huge rewards for minor deeds and huge punishments for negligible sins.

7.      That it is against circumstantial evidence.

Very few fake ahadith could be encircled or sifted by applying these later principles. As those fabricators who made minor or small ahadith, always made sure, all aspects were taken care of, that could lead others to believe in its fake appearance. Just as we observe in our own times, that in spite of powerful arguments by attorneys, false witnesses get away with their fake statements. Sometimes these false witnesses have a more telling effect as compared to genuine witnesses. Therefore, these above mentioned principles, for weeding out fake ahadith have proved futile. The religious critics tried to work out other ways of sifting right from wrong ahadith, but nothing seemed to produce any concrete results. Yahya bin Saeed al Kattaan, who is considered as the father of critical acumen or arguments, is of the opinion, there can be no bigger liars than the well wishers of ahadith. Imam Muslim says, mistakes can be made by even the most experienced hadithist.

Ayub Sukhtian’ee had formed an excellent opinion about his neighbour, on his knowledge, purity and worship habits. At the same time, he was not prepared to believe in his neighbour’s verdict, even on a thing as small as a date palm tree (quoted from Tou’gee ul Nazr, page 25). Hence the criterion for judging hadith was its sheer popularity or fame. Meaning, only those ahadith were considered authentic, that had been narrated by recognized or popular hadithists.

In actuality, ahadith entered in book form, on a mandate from Omar bin Abdul Aziz, in the beginning of second century hijra. Although, we do find hadith criticism in that period, but actual criticism, to determine fake ahadith, began in third century hijra. The critics of this later period were not without mistakes. It has it in Tz’kara tul Mau’zoo’at that: 

“All this material can only be comprehended by hadithists by glancing over the deeds or credentials; otherwise nothing comes close to conviction. As to what the critics judge as accurate, may perhaps be false in its spirit and what they determine as false, could turn out to be absolutely true.”

The critical religious scholars are not prepared to consider even the most authentic of ahadith with conviction, they take them only as speculations. The way these critics have categorized ahadith, for example as solid, true, popular or weak, fake, etc., etc., it seems they can not decide with any finality. As hadith can only belong to two categories—it can either be true or it can be false!

However, it seems the critiques that have come down to us on hadith, still need to be re-evaluated. A very intensive, hard line, hadithist, Allama ibne Jo’zee in his book entitled, Al Mau’zoo’at ul Kubra, has negated most of ahadith of Bokhari, Muslim and Snun Ara’biah. Hafiz Ibne Hajr, who is very lenient, or we can say, has a soft corner in his heart for ahadith, is also doubtful on Ibne Jo’zee. He writes that Jo’zee has so many fake ahadith in his four volumes that a separate book on it could easily be compiled.

 

GRAVE CONSEQUENCES:

In spite of the fact, hadith scholars did make an earnest attempt on saving the Muslim ummah from fake ahadith, it appears to have done little good. The influence of fictitious ahadith had such a strong impact on the minds and was so deep rooted that even till today, these fake ahadith are taken as a treasure of Deen of Islam. In the history of Hadith, we cannot find a single book that is written without counterfeit gospels, sayings and traditions. Some books, if not completely, will mostly contain fictitious ahadith. For example:

a.                   Sal’aat ul Ts’beeh—does not contain a single authentic hadith.

b.                  Sal’aat ul Ha’jaat—does not contain a single authentic hadith.

c.                   Sal;’aat ul Fi’heeh—does not contain a single authentic hadith.

It is stated in Tz’kara tul Mau’zoo’at, that in some Sufi books, for example Quwat ul Kaloob, by Abu Talib and in the explanatory books of Salb’ee, it has been incorrectly mentioned, that ‘night of values’ (Shub e Kadr), falls in the middle of the month of Sha’baan. People began to read Sal’aat ul Fi’heeh in this night of the year. They divided themselves in groups of ten and began reciting hundred of verses each, on this night. This Night of Values (or Shub e Bar’aat) was given more importance, than the annual Eed day, which happens to fall after ramadaan, every year. This night was now being celebrated as an annual fair, in which they practiced and spoke so much blasphyemy, that saints took to going into wilderness fearing the wrath of Allah may not happen. It was first of all practiced in 448 hijra in Bait ul Muqdass. This practice then covered the whole of Egypt and Syria. This wrong practice was impeded by righteous scholars, nevertheless, we do find it being practiced till the eight century hijra. Sheikh Ali bin Ibraham wrote in one of his periodicals, the practice of bringing lights or lighting up on Shub e Bar’aat was initiated by Bramka, a convert into Islam. He found an alterative to appeasing his need of his former practice of fire worship. This practice later on gradually acquired the form of fire works, that eventually spread from east to west. The list of famous fake ahadith books, of Sufis is as following:

I.                    Zia’rat Kubr e Nabi—not even one hadith is correct in it.

II.                 Fooza’yat e A’ema Ar’biah—not even one hadith is correct in it.

III.               Fooza’yat e Arab au Zu’baan e Arabi—“ditto”.

IV.              Mau’zoo’at e Ajam au Zu’baan e Ajami—“ditto”.

V.                 Fooza’yat e Abdul e Autaar e Kutb au Ghaus—“ditto”.

            We can hardly find any authentic hadith, in the scholars of Mut’kalafeen also. For example:

I.                    Fooza’yal e Sahabaa—Mostly fake ahadith.

II.                 Mna’kub e Ahil’e Bait—Mostly fake ahadith.

III.               Hud’yah aur Toofah ki Fazi’lat—Mostly fake ahadith.

IV.              Nikah ki Fazi’lat aur Aurtoon ki Mu’daah—Mostly fake ahadith.

V.                 Fooza’yat e Dr’ood—Mostly fake ahadith.

VI.              Mu’daah e Nabi (Salalah alay’heeh Ws’salam) —Mostly fake ahadith.

Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal writes, three kinds of books have no value at all. Those are Mughazi, Mulla’him and Tuf’seer. Although scholars have raised objection to this statement of Hanbal, nonetheless, his statement is not dependent on any objection. Any reader shall see, that if a handful of ahadith do prove to be correct, we can easily count them as exceptions. All ahadith about the separation of ummah are weak in essence. For example, we read the Jews and An’sars will be divided into 72 sects. The Messenger says, his ummah shall be divided into 73 sects, only one among them will enter the gates of Heaven. The discrepancy of this hadith is very obvious, when seen in context with the historical period. That is, the 73 sects of Muslims were declared by the religious scholars already in the fourth and fifth centuries hijra. After that numerous sects came into existence and more sects are being created.

 

FAKE DISCIPLES:

Although hadith scholars and historians together are in complete accord over the fact, the last remaining disciple of Muhammad^PBUH was Hazrat Abul Fiel Amir bin Da’ilah. He passed away in 102 hijra in Mecca. But what we observe from the writings of fabricators is very different. They introduced new disciples, long after the first century.

These disciples were:

I.                    Jabeer bin Harab—Hafiz Ibn Hajr writes about this fake disciple, that he participated in the Holy War of Khun’daq. Ameer Abdul Kareem bin N’sar says that he saw him with his own eyes in 573 hijra with Imam Nasir.

II.                 Abu Abdulah bin Muhammad Saqli—He lived in fifth century hijra. He was famous for having shook hands with Messenger Muhammad^PBUH. People considered it sacred to shake hands with him.

III.               Kais bin Tameem—He had a scar on his forehead. It was said about him, Hazrat Ali’s mule kicked him. He lived in Gheelon. We find traditions written about him in the beginning of sixth century hijra (about 517 hijra)

IV.              Rattan Baba Hindi—He died in 632 hijra. It is said about him that he participated in Hazrat Fatimah’s marriage. He lived in India.

            They created these fake disciples of MuhammadPBUH and narrated numerous ahadith through them. Some considered these ahadith as roots and quoted them as deeds of authority. The mental state of these religious scholars was so frozen and stagnant, that when authorities on ahadith denied these stories, people became annoyed with them. For example, when Imam Zuh’bee declared the traditions of Baba Rattan as weak or fake, Allama Mujad Uddin Kamoos was annoyed and upset. By the same token, Allama Safdi opposed Hafiz ibn Hajr, when the latter contested these stories.