Post by zeeshan on Aug 4, 2015 20:38:01 GMT
I came across this book today entitled ‘Ĥanafī Principles of Testing Ĥadīth’ by Shaykh Atabek Shukrov which has been translated by Sulaiman Ahmed. The topic is indeed an interesting one which has sparked some focus in the Muslim world in recent times with various works being written on the topic in recent years. Mufti Zafar Aĥmad Uthmānī (d.1974) was one such scholar who took up the task of going through the various chapters of Fiqh and analysing the Aĥadīth therein from a Ĥanafī Usūl perspective. This then became the celebrated work known as ‘I’lā al-Sunan’.
Unfortunately, having read the prologue and a few other chapters, I was surprised to find so many mistakes. Leaving aside errors in transliteration, the few pages I read contained a range of inaccuracies. I will jot down those that I found in the prologue (which is just over three pages) and maybe in the future move on to the other chapters.
1) He states that Ibn Ĥajar (d.1449/852) said regarding the Ĥadīth in Bukhārī where the Prophet has magic done upon him, it’s ‘only rejected by heretics’. He then goes on state that the Ĥanafīs have ‘instead rejected it outright based on their classical principles’.
The point about the Ĥanafīs rejecting the Ĥadīth will come later, but it’s important to note here that Badr al-Dīn al-‘Ainī (d.1453/855) a famous Ĥanafī scholar who was a contemporary of Ibn Ĥajar said the exact same thing about those who reject this Ĥadīth. Al-’Ainī says
2) He says Baiđāwī was a Ĥanafī
I have failed to locate him in any of the Ĥanafī Tabaqāt works but have seen him mentioned in Shāfi’ī Tabaqāt works like that of Subkī’s and al-Ziriklī and others also classify him as a Shāfi’ī. This is supported by the fact that he wrote a Shāfi’ī Usūl work.
3) He states ‘Imam Abū Mansūr al-Māturīdī (d.994/333)… denied the notion that the Prophet was affected by black magic at all and rejected this Ĥadīth. He (al-Māturīdī) also said the reason for the revelation (Asbāb al-Nuzūl) of ‘Surah Falaq’ and 'Surah al-Nās’… was not as a result of magic at all…’
Having referred to the two places of references he gives to the above observation, the first point where al-Māturīdī supposedly rejects the Ĥadīth, has no mention of the Ĥadīth. As for the Tafsīr of Surah Falaq, then he actually does mention this Ĥadīth as a Sabab al-Nuzūl and also quotes ‘al-Faqīh’ (initially I thought he was referring to the Ĥanafī Abū Nasr al-‘Iyāđī, but Mufti Muntasir Zaman pointed out that it seems that ‘al-Faqīh was added by the scribe to clarify when al-Māturīdī is making his own point) defending the Ĥadīth from the Mu’tazilī al’Asamm. Here’s the Arabic:
The underlined part clearly defends the Ĥadīth.
4) He states ‘Imam Abū Bakr Jassās al-Rāzī al-Ĥanafī… stated ‘the ignorant of the Ĥashawīs (anthropomorphists) narrated this Ĥadīth without knowing it was fabricated’.
He has here accurately presented Jassas’s view but is this one quote enough from a Ĥanafī sufficed to claim this is the ‘Ĥanafī view’? When looked at carefully we realise that this was a Mu’tazilī view, a group which Jassās is famous to have been influenced by (as mentioned by al-Dhahabī and proven with examples by the contemporary Ĥanafī, Sa'id Bakdāsh). We have already seen al-Māturīdī refute the Mu’tazilī al-'Asamm for this view by quoting Abū Nasr al-’Iyāđī (or referring to himself). Furthermore, Jassās never attributes this view to the founders of the Ĥanafī school let alone claim this was the Mađhab in any way or form.
Interestingly, this very same Ĥadīth was quoted by Abū Ja’far al-Țaĥāwī, who is senior to Jassas, approvingly in his Sharĥ Mushkil al-Athār.
The underlined part is al-Țaĥāwī using the Ĥadīth as evidence.
Finally, the late Ĥanafī scholar, Allāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī (d.1933) took Jassās to task specifically on the point that the Ĥadīth somehow affects the truth of the Prophet’s Prophethood, where he states
It’s unfortunate to see these errors only in the prologue so I would ask readers to be cautious about taking information from the book before cross checking. I am hoping that the Ĥanafī school is not used as a smoke screen to justify unorthodox views.
Hopefully other chapters will be consulted and analysed in the future if need be.
Unfortunately, having read the prologue and a few other chapters, I was surprised to find so many mistakes. Leaving aside errors in transliteration, the few pages I read contained a range of inaccuracies. I will jot down those that I found in the prologue (which is just over three pages) and maybe in the future move on to the other chapters.
1) He states that Ibn Ĥajar (d.1449/852) said regarding the Ĥadīth in Bukhārī where the Prophet has magic done upon him, it’s ‘only rejected by heretics’. He then goes on state that the Ĥanafīs have ‘instead rejected it outright based on their classical principles’.
The point about the Ĥanafīs rejecting the Ĥadīth will come later, but it’s important to note here that Badr al-Dīn al-‘Ainī (d.1453/855) a famous Ĥanafī scholar who was a contemporary of Ibn Ĥajar said the exact same thing about those who reject this Ĥadīth. Al-’Ainī says
وَقد اعْترض بعض الْمُلْحِدِينَ على حَدِيث عَائِشَة، وَقَالُوا: كَيفَ يجوز السحر على رَسُول الله
2) He says Baiđāwī was a Ĥanafī
I have failed to locate him in any of the Ĥanafī Tabaqāt works but have seen him mentioned in Shāfi’ī Tabaqāt works like that of Subkī’s and al-Ziriklī and others also classify him as a Shāfi’ī. This is supported by the fact that he wrote a Shāfi’ī Usūl work.
3) He states ‘Imam Abū Mansūr al-Māturīdī (d.994/333)… denied the notion that the Prophet was affected by black magic at all and rejected this Ĥadīth. He (al-Māturīdī) also said the reason for the revelation (Asbāb al-Nuzūl) of ‘Surah Falaq’ and 'Surah al-Nās’… was not as a result of magic at all…’
Having referred to the two places of references he gives to the above observation, the first point where al-Māturīdī supposedly rejects the Ĥadīth, has no mention of the Ĥadīth. As for the Tafsīr of Surah Falaq, then he actually does mention this Ĥadīth as a Sabab al-Nuzūl and also quotes ‘al-Faqīh’ (initially I thought he was referring to the Ĥanafī Abū Nasr al-‘Iyāđī, but Mufti Muntasir Zaman pointed out that it seems that ‘al-Faqīh was added by the scribe to clarify when al-Māturīdī is making his own point) defending the Ĥadīth from the Mu’tazilī al’Asamm. Here’s the Arabic:
قال الفقيه - رحمه اللَّه -: الأمر بالتعوذ به يحتمل وجوها ثلاثة:
أحدها: على التعليم، لا لنازلة كانت في ذلك الوقت؛ لكن لما علم اللَّه - تعالى - من عظيم شر من ذكر بما يظن بالأغلب أن شر ما ذكر يتصل بالذي ذكر في علم الله تعالى؛ فأمرهم بالتعوذ به، كما أخبر في أمر الشيطان: أنه عدو لهم، وأنه يراهم من حيث لا يرونه؛ ليكونوا أبدا معدين متيقظين فزعين إلى اللَّه - تعالى - معتصمين، وهذا أحق في التعليم من الذي ذكر في سورة الناس؛ لأنه أضر من ذلك العدو؛ لأن ضرره إنما يتصل به بإتيانه ما دعاه إليه الشيطان، وما يوسوس في صدره الوسواس، وذلك فعله يمكنه الامتناع عنه، وهذا الضرر يقع بفعل غيره من وجه لا يعلم مأتاه -أعني: شر النفاثات ونحو ذلك- فهو أحق في تعليم العباد فيه، والأمر بالفزع إلى من بلطفه جعل ذلك الفعل ممن ذكرنا معمولا فيه مؤثرا.
والثاني: ما قيل: نزل جبريل - عليه السلام - على رسول اللَّه - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ - فقال: " إن عفريتا من الجن يكيدك؛ فتعوذ بأعوذ برب الفلق، وبرب الناس من شره إذا أويت إلى الفراش ".
والثالث: قيل: إن واحدًا من اليهود سحر رسول اللَّه - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ -، فنزل هذا.
قال أبو بكر الأصم: ذكروا في هذه السورة حديثا فيه ما لا يجوز؛ فتركته.
قال الفقيه - رحمه اللَّه -: ولكن عندنا فيما قيل: إن رسول اللَّه - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ - سحر - وجهان في إثبات رسالته ونبوته.
أحدهما: بما أعلمه بالوحي أنه سحر، وذلك فعل فعلوه سرا منه، ولا وقوف لأحد على الغيب إلا بالوحي.
والثاني: بما أبطل عمل السحر بتلاوة القرآن؛ فيصير لتلاوته في إبطال عمل السحر ما
لعصا موسى - عليه السلام - وأن هذا في كونه آية أعظم مما فعل موسى عليه السلام؛ لأن ذلك يتنوع بتنوع ما له الفعل والعمل من حيث الجوهر والطبع من حيث مرأى العين؛ فإنه ثعبان يلقف ما صنعوا. فأما إبطال السحر وعمله بتلاوة القرآن لا يكون إلا باللطف من اللَّه تعالى، واللَّه أعلم.
The underlined part clearly defends the Ĥadīth.
4) He states ‘Imam Abū Bakr Jassās al-Rāzī al-Ĥanafī… stated ‘the ignorant of the Ĥashawīs (anthropomorphists) narrated this Ĥadīth without knowing it was fabricated’.
He has here accurately presented Jassas’s view but is this one quote enough from a Ĥanafī sufficed to claim this is the ‘Ĥanafī view’? When looked at carefully we realise that this was a Mu’tazilī view, a group which Jassās is famous to have been influenced by (as mentioned by al-Dhahabī and proven with examples by the contemporary Ĥanafī, Sa'id Bakdāsh). We have already seen al-Māturīdī refute the Mu’tazilī al-'Asamm for this view by quoting Abū Nasr al-’Iyāđī (or referring to himself). Furthermore, Jassās never attributes this view to the founders of the Ĥanafī school let alone claim this was the Mađhab in any way or form.
Interestingly, this very same Ĥadīth was quoted by Abū Ja’far al-Țaĥāwī, who is senior to Jassas, approvingly in his Sharĥ Mushkil al-Athār.
- حَدَّثَنَا فَهْدُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، حَدَّثَنَا فَرْوَةُ بْنُ أَبِي الْمَغْرَاءِ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُسْهِرٍ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهَا قَالَتْ: " سُحِرَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَتَّى إِنْ كَانَ لَيُخَيَّلُ أَنَّهُ لِيَفْعَلُ شَيْئًا وَمَا فَعَلَهُ. قَالَتْ: فَدَعَا فِي بَيْتِي، ثُمَّ قَالَ لِي: " يَا عَائِشَةُ، أَشَعَرْتِ أَنَّ اللهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ قَدْ أَفْتَانِي فِيمَا اسْتَفْتَيْتُهُ فِيهِ؟ جَاءَنِي رَجُلَانِ فَقَعَدَ وَاحِدٌ عِنْدَ رَأْسِي، وَالْآخَرُ عِنْدَ رِجْلَيَّ، فَقَالَ أَحَدُهُمَا لِصَاحِبِهِ: مَا وَجَعُ الرَّجُلِ؟ قَالَ: مَطْبُوبٌ، قَالَ: وَمَنْ طَبَّهُ؟ قَالَ: لَبِيدُ بْنُ أَعْصَمَ، قَالَ: وَفِيمَا سَحَرَهُ؟ قَالَ: فِي مُشْطِ وَمُشَاقَةٍ، وَجُفِّ طَلْعَةِ ذَكَرٍ، قَالَ: أَيْنَ؟ قَالَ: فِي بِئْرِ ذَرْوَانَ، فَأَتَيْتُهَا فَكَأَنَّ مَاءَهَا نُقَاعَةُ الْحِنَّاءِ، وَكَأَنَّ رُءُوسُ نَخْلِهَا رُءُوسُ الشَّيَاطِينِ، فَأَمَرْتُ بِهَا، فُطُمَّتْ ". فَقُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، قَدْ أَخْرَجْتَهُ؟ قَالَ: " لَا، قَدْ عَافَانِي اللهُ " وَكَرِهْتُ أَنْ أُثَوِّرَ عَلَى النَّاسِ مِنْهُ شَرًّا "
وَحَدَّثَنَا فَهْدٌ، حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ يُونُسَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الْأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ حَيَّانَ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَرْقَمَ، قَالَ: سَحَرَ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَجُلٌ مِنَ الْيَهُودِ، فَاشْتَكَى، فَأَتَاهُ جِبْرِيلُ صَلَوَاتُ اللهِ عَلَيْهِ بِالْمُعَوِّذَتَيْنِ، وَقَالَ: إِنَّ رَجُلًا مِنَ الْيَهُودِ سَحَرَكَ، وَالسِّحْرُ فِي بِئْرِ فُلَانٍ، فَأَرْسَلَ عَلِيًّا رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ، فَجَاءَ بِهِ، فَأَمَرَهُ أَنْ يَحِلَّ الْعُقَدَ، وَيَقْرَأَ آيَةً، فَجَعَلَ يَقْرَأُ وَيَحِلُّ، حَتَّى قَامَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَأَنَّمَا أُنْشِطَ مِنْ عِقَالٍ، فَمَا ذَكَرَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِذَلِكَ الْيَهُودِيِّ شَيْئًا مِمَّا صَنَعَ، وَلَا رَآهُ فِي وَجْهِهِ " فَفِي هَذَيْنِ الْحَدِيثَيْنِ مَا قَدْ دَلَّ عَلَى بَقَاءِ عَمَلِ السَّحْرِ إِلَى الْوَقْتِ الَّذِي كَانَ سُحِرَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَى مَا فِي هَذَيْنِ الْحَدِيثَيْنِ، وَإِذَا جَازَ بَقَاؤُهُ إِلَى ذَلِكَ الزَّمَانِ، جَازَ بَقَاؤُهُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ
The underlined part is al-Țaĥāwī using the Ĥadīth as evidence.
Finally, the late Ĥanafī scholar, Allāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī (d.1933) took Jassās to task specifically on the point that the Ĥadīth somehow affects the truth of the Prophet’s Prophethood, where he states
قوله: (حتى كان يرى أنه يأتي النساء، ولا يأتيهن) فاحفظ هذا اللفظ، فإنَّه صريح في أن السحر كان في أمور النساء، ولم يكن له تعلق بأمور الشرع، وفي أكثر الألفاظ إيهامٌ، كما في الرواية الآتية، ففيها: أنه فعل الشيء، وما فعله، وفي الرواية الماضية: يخيل إليه أنه يفعل الشيء، وما فعله، فسبق إلى بعضهم الإِطلاق، نظرًا إلى اللفظ، فجعل يؤوله، حتى أن أبا بكر الجصاص أنكر هذا الحديث رأسًا، واتضح مما قلنا أن الحديثَ صحيحٌ، وأنه يتعلق بأمور النِّساء خاصة، ولا يمس غير هذا الباب
It’s unfortunate to see these errors only in the prologue so I would ask readers to be cautious about taking information from the book before cross checking. I am hoping that the Ĥanafī school is not used as a smoke screen to justify unorthodox views.
Hopefully other chapters will be consulted and analysed in the future if need be.
