Restoring The Athari Methodology of Hadeeth Sciences Series: Volume IThe Confusion of Mutawaatir and Ahad Hadeeth Caused

by Heterodo Ideologies
Author: Ustaadh Haitham Hamdan Source: Multaqa Ahlul-Hadeeth Edited and Published by: al-Mustaqeem Publications Available in E-Book format below Issue 1: What qualifies as a mutawaatir hadeeth? Simply put: The istilaahi definition a Mutawaatir hadeeth is one which was proven not to have been an error. otice the difference between sayin!: was not proven to have been an error" and sayin! was proven not to have been an error. This distinction will be made abundantly clear after reviewin! the followin! material inshaa#Allah al-$hateeb al-Ba!hdadee defined the Mutawaatir in his $ifaayah pa!e %& by sayin!: ' it is a narration which has been related by people the number of whom was so high that made it habitually impossible for them to have collaborated on lying, and that it was unfeasible for them to have gathered in the period when the narration became widely spread, and that the act of narration did not lend itself to oppression, misunderstanding or promotion of lying. ( )bnus-Salaah defined it in his Mu*addimah pa!e +, as: ' A narration which has been narrated by those whose truthfulness (collectively has been proven, thru doubtless analysis, to be a necessity .( -aafidh al-)ra*ee" -aafidh )bn -a.r al-As*alaani" and -aafidh as-Sakhawee defined the Mutawaatir in a similar way. /rom this we learn that a Mutawaatir hadeeth is 0T necessarily the hadeeth which was narrated by three" twelve or forty narrators in each layer of narrators. These numbers were considered by some to be the minimum re*uired to achieve Tawaatur 1provin! it was not an error2. These numbers are 1to some2 .ust the method of demonstratin! Tawaatur" and should not be part of the definition of Tawaatur. as-Suyooti said in Tadreeb ar-3awee 45%6&: ' a specific number of narrators is not what should be considered .( Then he related the dispute amon! the scholars on the minimum number of narrators re*uired to achieve the criterion of Tawaatur. Thus a hadeeth that is 'ahad( is a hadeeth that does not meet the level of tawaatir" re!ardless of the number of those who narrated it in each layer of narrators. A!ain Abu Bakr al-$hateeb said: 'As for Ahaad narrations" it is that which falls short of the re*uirement of Tawatur.( )bn -a.r said in the ukhbah pa!e %: 'everythin! other than 1Mutawaatir2 is Ahaad.( Many think that Ahaad hadeeth are limited to those narrated by one or two narrators in one or more layers of narration. This is not correct. Any hadeeth which could not be proven not to have been an error is Ahaad.

Issue 2: Who was the first to come up with the distinction of !utawaatir vs. Ahaad hadeeths? The specific person who first advocated this distinction is unknown.

-owever we know the followin!: %2 Ahlul--adeeth from the Salaf did not advocate this distinction. )t was not mentioned in their numerous works in a favorable way. 42 )n fact" several of the early scholars of )slam condemned this distinction. Two of such scholars who were e7plicit in their condemnation were )mam Shafi#i 1d. 489 A-2 and -aafidh :thmaan bin Sa#eed ;arimi 1d. 4<8 A-2.

Issue 3: "mam #hafi$i$s condemnation of the !utawaatir vs. Ahaad distinction% )n his !reat book al-:mm= )mam Shafi#i documented several of his debates. 0ne of those debates discussed the issue of the distinction at hand. The followin! is a translation of the debate startin! with the discussion re!ardin! the concept of Tawaatur. )mam Shafi#i said in 654<>: '" told him% define &awaatur and give me an e'ample for it. (e said% in the e'ample you gave regarding the four narrators, if they agreed on the te't of the (adeeth, whether in prohibiting or permitting something, and each narrator was from a different country, each one of them received the narration from a different person than the other narrator, and delivered the narration to a person different than the other, only then would it be impossible for the narration to have been an error. " said% so to you) &awaatur is not achieved * unless a narrator from !adinah only narrated the (adeeth from one who is from !adinah, and the !eccan narrator only from the !eccan, and a +asri from a +asri, and ,ufi from ,ufi, all the way until each one of them reached a different companion of the -rophet alayhi salatu salam? &hey all must agree on the te't of the narration? (e said% yes, because if they were living in the same country, it would be conceivable for them to have collaborated (on lying . +ut if they were from different countries, it would be impossible. " said% Woe to you for being accusatory for those whom you are ma.ing the source of your religion .( ?hat is )mam Shafi#i sayin! here@ -e is condemnin! his opponent for bein! so worried about his teachers lyin! to him" when they were supposed to be trustworthy in his eyes. They were his sources of reli!ious knowled!e. Aater" )mam Shafi#i continues to demonstrate how his opponent had no escape from applyin! the theory of Tawaatur on the Sahabah as well" which is absurd. -e also tells his opponent that narrators used to travel. So .ust because one of them was from a particular country did not mean that it was impossible for him to have traveled and collaborated with another narrator. So as we see" )mam Shafi#i condemned the idea of re*uirin! Tawaatur as a proof of the narrators not to have collaborated on lyin!.

Issue : Addressing a doubt of the innovating propagandist regarding ash/#haafi$ee$s use of ,habrul/Aammah )n several of his works" )mam Shafi#i accepted classifyin! some narrations as: $habarul BAammah " so how can one say that )mam Shafi#i condemned Tawatur@ $habarul BAammah is not the same as a Mutawaatir -adeeth. This could be demonstrated from the followin!: /irst: ?hen )mam Shafi#i asked his opponent: '-ow is a Crophetic Sunnah proven to be authentic in your opinion@ -e replied: by one of three methods. Shafi#i said: what it the first@

-e said: $habarul A#aammah" information related by the masses from the masses. Shafi#i said: do you mean like dhuhr prayer bein! four 3ak#as@ -e said: yes. Shafi#i said: ) do not know of anyone who disa!rees with you on this. ?hat is the second method@ -e said: Tawaatur of narrations.( As we can see" there is a distinction between the two methods. So $habarul BAammah which was mentioned by )mam Shafi#iDs opponent and which Shafi#i accepted= is not Tawaatur. Second: )mam Shafi#i condemned Tawaatur" so how could it be the same as $habarul BAammah which he accepted@ Thirdly: )f we study the e7amples which Shafi#i !ave for $habarul BAammah" we find that the re*uirement for Tawaatur is not fulfilled in them. /or e7ample" that ;huhr is four 3ak#as was not reported by a lar!e number of narrators who lived in different countries E etc. So he could not have been talkin! about Tawaatur when discussin! $habarul BAammah. So what is $habarul BAammah@ )t is the information which has been relayed by the Muslim masses on the authority of previous Muslim masses" and so on. Such as: the number or 3ak#as of ;huhr prayer and that the soul leaves the body after death. This abundance in narration would make it acceptable by default. )t is .ust like sayin!: the fact that the Tsunami occurred is acceptable by default. Because millions related the event of the Tsunami on the authority of millions" makin! it impossible for it to have been a fabrication. So it is not the same as Tawaatur because Tawaatur is not demonstrated by default" rather by analysis. This is shown from the distinction which was made by the opponent of )mam Shafi#i in the debate.

Issue !: Who was "mam #hafi$i debating in this debate? )mam Shafi#i did not mention the name of his opponent in his book al-:mm. -owever" many believe that he was debatin! Bishr bin Fhiyaath al-Mareesy 1d. 4%< A-2. )mam adh-;hahabi and others referred to some of Shafi#i#s debates with Bishr. ?ho was Bishr al-Mareesy@ )mam adh-;hahabi said in Siyaar A#laam an- ubalaa# %85%,,: 'Bishr bin Fhiyaath al-Mareesy E was one of the !rand /u*ahaa#. -e took 1knowled!e2 from Abu Gusuf 1student of )mam Abu -aneefa2" and narrated the -adeeth of -ammad bin Salamah and Sufyaan bin B:yaynah. Then he started to study $alaam and it took him over. So he abandoned piety and Fod fearin!" and promoted the sayin! that the Huran is a creature. :ntil he became an icon of Iahmis" and a scholar of theirs#. So people of knowled!e despised him" many of them considered him $afir. -e did not meet al-Iahm bin Safwaan" but he received Iahm#s opinions from his followers.( )n other words" the source of the Mutawaatirs vs. Ahaad distinction was people of Bid#ah. And )mam Shafi#i was defendin! the Sunnah a!ainst this Bid#ee concept. Issue ": "mam 0aarimi$s condemnation of the !utawaatir vs. Ahaad distinction% )n his book ar-3udd BAla Bishr al-Mareesy al#Aneed" '3efutin! Bishr al-Mareesee" the stubborn one( he said: '"n an effort to re1ect -rophetic traditions, you claimed a laughable claim, which neither a wise nor ignorant member of the 2mmah has claimed before you.

3ou claimed that a -rophetic tradition would not be reliable unless that in case a man swears that his wife is divorced if this certain tradition is a lie, that his wife would not be divorced. And that if a man swears that his wife is divorced if this particular (adeeth which is considered authentic that it was not authentic that his wife would not be divorced. #o we say to this opponent who is contradicting to himself% by this claim, you have falsified all -rophetic traditions, those which you use to support your misguidance, and those which you do not use. 3ou are someone whom it is not worth it to pay attention. 4evertheless, you have introduced something which no human prior to you has introduced. +ased on your claim, it becomes incumbent on every "mam to as. those who narrate -rophetic traditions to as. the narrator to swear on divorcing their wives * Woe to you, scholars have always accepted and implemented -rophetic traditions without as.ing the narrators to swear that the most authentic narrations were said by the -rophet A#W#. 5r that the wea.est narrations were not said by the -rophet A#W#. "nstead, they did not reserve any effort in ensuring that the narrators were trustworthy, and that the narrations were well preserved. &hey never felt obligated to swear as you as.ed them to do. 3ou came up with something which neither a !uslim nor a ,afir before you came up with. +ased on your claim, 1udges and rulers should not rule based on the testimony of trustworthy witnesses unless the 1udge was willing to swear that if the witnesses were not truthful that his wife is divorced * Woe to you, who among the nation of !uhammad A#W# said this before you?6 .( This discussion demonstrates that the Salaf never made it a re*uirement to prove that a narration could not have been an error before acceptin! it. ?hich is what the advocates of Tawaatur claim. The Salaf did their best to analyJe the narrations and to arrive at the authentic of them.

Issue #: 0oes !utawaatir (adeeth e'ist in the #unnah? The simple answer is: o. Gou will not find a -adeeth which has been narrated by a minimum of three Sahabah" and on the authority of each Sahabi" three Tabi#een etc K meaning in each stage of transmission. &his is .nown as tabaqa in 2loomul/(adeeth L. )n fact" the people of -adeeth did not care about this issue. ?e saw from the previous issue that the scholars condemned this distinction to the point of considerin! it an innovation. )mam )bnus-Salah said in his Mu*addimah +,: '1Mutawaatir -adeeth2 is not included in the trade of -adeeth" and hardly e7ists in the narration of people of -adeeth E and whoever is asked to produce such a 1Mutawaatir2 -adeeth" will !ive up.( The only e7ample which )bnus-Salah and others were able to produce was -adeeth: 'whoever lies on me let him reserve his place in the hell fire.( )f this is the case then what do the scholars mean when they say: ' it has been received with &awaatur that the -rophet alayhi salatu salam said7did this (@ Those scholars did not mean Tawaatur in the technical sense: a minimum of three narrators on the authority of three in each taba*a etc. ?hat scholars like ibn Abdul-Barr" ibn -aJm" ibnTaymiyyah and others meant by this is that this has been narrated in abundance on the authority of the Crophet alayhi salatu salam. That he" alayhi salatu salam" said5did it in several occasions under different circumstances. /or e7ample: the prohibition of takin! !raves as places of worship" the prayer of solar eclipse and the -adeeth of the victorious !roup. one of the individual narrations which relates to us these sayin!s5actions has been narrated by a minimum of three on the authority of three E etc. Another way that some scholars used the term Tawaatur is to describe a concept which is prevalent in the Sunnah. Even if the te7ts which relate this concept are not Mutawaatir. This is known as 'Mutawaatir in meanin!(. ?hat they meant is that this concept is mentioned over and over in the Sunnah to the point of becomin! indisputable. /or e7ample: the concept of )slamic brotherhood" that Allah S?T will be seen in the afterlife and that cleanliness is a virtue. A!ain" none of the individual narrations which relates these concepts is Mutawaatir in the technical sense.

Issue $: Addressing a common doubts to the following questions "f someone says% "t seems logical not to accept a narration unless it has been proven not to have been an error, doesn$t it? The claim that this methodolo!y stands to lo!ic means: %2 That the Salaf radhiyallahu anhu" by which the reli!ion is based on" were not lo!ical in acceptin! narrations of trustworthy individuals without re*uirin! the proof of it not bein! an error. 42 That all our daily affairs are run in an illo!ical manner. ?hen your mechanic calls to tell you that your car is ready" do you ask him to prove that he has not erred@M 0r when a doctor tells you that you have an infection and that you need to take this medicine for it" do you re*uire a proof that he is not lyin!@M 0ff coarse not" you trust your mechanic and doctor" so you accept the information which they relate to you. +ut we are tal.ing about matters of religion, not a bro.en car? True. -owever" we will not be more protective of our reli!ion than Allah Subhaanahu wa ta#Ala. -e Subhaanahu wa ta#Ala says in Surah -u.uraat &: 5 ye who believe6 if a wic.ed person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done.( ?hich means that if a trustworthy person delivers news that we should accept it without re*uirin! a demonstration of it not bein! a lie. -e Subhaanahu wa ta#Ala also said in Surat at-Tawbah %44: 'if a contingent from every e'pedition remained behind, they could devote themselves to studies in religion, and admonish the people when they return to them, that thus they (may learn to guard themselves (against evil . ( Allah did not make Tawaatur a concern. )n addition" we will not be more protective of the reli!ion than our beloved Crophet alayhi salatu salam. -e used to send individual Sahabis to teach )slam without bein! concerned about Tawaatur. As a compromise, could we say that we will accept Ahaad (adeeth for matters of 8iqh (action , but not matters of 9Aqeedah (.nowledge ? )t is the position of the four schools of thou!ht that Ahhad -adeeth warrant both action and knowled!e. 3efer to )bnul Hayyim#s Mukhtasar as-Sawaa#i* al-Mursalah. ?e never see this /i*h5#A*eedah distinction in the Huran" Sunnah or teachin!s of the Salaf. )t was people of $alam who first came up with it. Another problem with this compromise was demonstrated by )mam al-Albani rahmatullahi alayh. -e said once: '"f we were to consider this distinction, then how do we deal with a (adeeth which contains both 8iqh and 9Aqeedah issues? M /or e7ample" the -adeeth of seekin! refu!e in Allah Subhaanahu wa ta#Ala from the hellfire" punishment of !rave and ad-da..aal" before Tassaleem in Salah. Should we act upon it 1/i*h2 without acceptin! its assertion of hell" the !rave turmoil and the da..aal 1BA*eedah2@M This would be usin! double standards. So" this distinction is not acceptable. /urthermore" we see people of $alaam very often usin! this distinction only when it is in their best interest. 0ther times we see them usin! -adeeth to support their Bida# even if it was not Mutawaatir.

Issue %: #ince the !utawaatir7Ahaad distinction is neither #har$ee nor logical, why did people of ,alaam resort to it?

As )mam ;arimi said to Bishr alMareesy: ()n an effort to re.ect Crophetic traditions" you claimed a lau!hable claim E etc(. Ceople of Bid#ah found the Sunnah to be in the way of spreadin! their deviance. So they resorted to this distinction to deny Sunnah based ar!uments a!ainst them. Issue 1&: Among those who advocated the !utawaatir7Ahaad distinction were great scholars of #unnah, such as al,hateeb al+aghdaadi, ibnu#salah, and many others. Why is this? This is a deep *uestion. )t will take a whole article to e7plain how $alaam found its way to most )slamic and lin!uistic sciences. -adeeth was not an e7ception. Briefly" in an effort to repel the dan!er of Shi#a" Sunni dynasties such as the Sal.u*is promoted Ash#arism. Ash#aris were doin! a !reater .ob in refutin! Shi#ism than were Ahlul-hadeeth. Cromotion of Ash#arism brou!ht with it the promotion of $alaam theolo!y. Ash#aris controlled )slamic schools" they desi!ned the curriculums for them" and only !raduates from those universities were employed by the !overnment. The role of Ahlul-hadeeth was !radually diminished. This phenomenon was further e7a!!erated y the rise of the ruler idhaamul-Mulk. )t was durin! this period where )slam in the Muslim world became flipped whereby the influ7 of Ash#arism the norm and Sunnism became the mar!inaliJed outcast. -adeeth was amon! the sciences affected by this infiltration and to many scholars" this new version of the science of -adeeth became understood as the proper version. Issue 11: "s this why most "slamic universities teach this distinction in their (adeeth curriculums? Ges. )t is because of the systematic infiltration of the $alaam methodolo!y into the science of -adeeth since past !enerations until now.

Issue 12: :at$i ( vs. 0hanni ( distinction% This is a distinction which is based on the Mutawaatir5Ahaad distinction. Hat#i means: definite. dhanni means: Crobable. These two classifications were applied by people of $alaam to both the authenticity of the narration" and its meanin!. So four classifications resulted: %2 Hat#i with respect to both authenticity and meanin!. An e7ample for this is the Huranic verse: 'establish prayer(. This statement is definite in authenticity and has only one meanin!. 42 Hat#i with respect to authenticity" and ;hanni with respect to meanin!. )ts authenticity is definite but its meanin! is probable. The meanin! is not a!reed upon. >2 ;hanni with respect to authenticity but Hat#i with respect to meanin!. Such as any Ahaad -adeeth with a definite meanin!. 92 ;hanni with respect to both authenticity and meanin!. Such as an Ahaad -adeeth. )ts authenticity is probable" and it could mean several thin!s" so its meanin! is probable as well. ?e do not find this distinction in the works of the Salaf" and there is no evidence that it had an impact on the rulin!s to which they had arrived. The Salaf considered all authentic narrations warrantin! both knowled!e and action. This is all ) have re!ardin! this matter. Anythin! correct that )#ve said is from Allah. Any error is from me and the Shaytan. ) ask Allah Subhaanahu wa ta#Ala to teach us that which benefits us and to benefit us from that which -e teaches us.

E'ilo(ue

?e wish to further add to the beneficial material above that the initial premise for the introduction of this unfounded practice by the innovatin! !roups of kalaam was to falsify those narrated reports that ran contrary to their Freek philosophical based predilections. This was a dis!uised way to nullify the reli!ion throu!h academics. ?hile this a!e old philosophy is only relevant within Salafi5Ash#ari polemics" this heterodo7 concoction has been !iven new life from the revisionist sectors of the Muslim nation. ?e mean here by 'revisionist( the !roups consistin! of either the inkaarul-hadeeth movement 1hadeeth re.ectionists2" the modernists" or the pro!ressives. ?hat is interestin! to note however is that the premise for revivin! this unwarranted methodolo!y has nothin! to do with makin! futile )slamic doctrine that is embedded in these hadeth reports" rather the re.uvenation of this heresy is actually revives for the purpose of makin! futile the full scope of the )slamic shariah. So in this new re.uvenated platform of this a!e old heresy" )slamic doctrine alone is not what is bein! attacked" rather is is the entire shariah of )slam" in particular those issues of the shariah which are found problematic. The basis of what is actually 'problematic( is the premise of the ?estern paradi!m i.e. their idea of ethics and ideals.