Unacceptable Narrator Criticism in the Science of Hadith

[Saad]

Unacceptable Narrator Criticism in the Science of Hadith

If jarh (narrator criticism) is issued due to partisanship, enmity, loathing, or the likes, then it is rejected, and only he who is rejected relies on it. In light of this, the statement of Imam Malik regarding Muhammad ibn Ishaq, the author of Al-Maghazi, that he is a dajjal from amongst the dajjals, was not accepted, since it is known that it stemmed from clear animosity. Rather, they (the imams of jarh wa ta'dil) affirmed that he was hasan al-hadith (an acceptable narrator), and the imams of hadith used him as a proof. I have dealt with this issue more thoroughly in my treatise, Imam al-Kalam fi ma Yata'allaqu bi 'l-Qira'ah Khalf 'l-Imam. Likewise, Al-Nasa'i's censure of Ahmad ibn Salih al-Misri, Al-Thawri's censure of Abu Hanifah al-Kufi, Ibn Ma'in's censure of Al-Shaf'i, Ahmad's censure of Al-Harith al-Muhasibi, and Ibn Mandah's censure of Abu Nu'aym al-Asbahani are not accepted, due to the same reason. There are many similar examples in the famous books of this discipline.Hence, the scholars stated, "One's criticism of a contemporary is not accepted." That is, if it is without evidence, because being a contemporary often leads to personal animosity.

Read the entire article...

[Ahmad_shakeel]

good article for so caled internet muhaditeen of our age

[Sulaiman84]

Goes to show how intricate the science of Hadith really is.

[moosa3]

jazakallah khair

[Talib84]

Jazak Allah

But why would two pious contemporary Imams have enmity for each other, so much so that they ascribe characteristics on the other which are false? Wouldn't this be against Islam?

[godilali]

I'll address this in a little bit more detail later, but I would just like to make it clear that it is inconceivable that a pious imam would deliberately spread false information about others.

[godilali]

Jazak Allah

But why would two pious contemporary Imams have enmity for each other, so much so that they ascribe characteristics on the other which are false? Wouldn't this be against Islam?

Jazak Allah

But why would two pious contemporary Imams have enmity for each other, so much so that they ascribe characteristics on the other which are false? Wouldn't this be against Islam?

As I stated previously, it is inconceivable that a pious imam would deliberately spread false information about others. That being said, what would cause them to inaccurately describe another scholar in a negative manner? There are a number of possibilities, from amongst which are:

-Misinformation: during the time of Imam Ahmad's mihnah some of the mu'tazilis that were persecuting the hanabilah (in aqidah) were Hanafis, and they tried to attribute some of their false beliefs to Imam Abu Hanifah. Naturally, some of the imams of the time attacked Abu Hanifah on the basis of innacurate information.

-Differences in madhab: one example of this is the differences etween the ahl al-hadith and ahl al-ra`y, which is well known, and this could lead to a person from one of the two schools having some animosity towards the other, leading to a biased assessment of one's opponent. Another example could be the persecution of al-Bukhari by the followers of al-Dhuhli over the lafz of Qur`an issue.

-Rivalry: being contemporaries and rivals often lead to personal animosity, which in turn lead to a biased appraisal of one another.

-Jealousy: the imams, despite their great piety, were human beings and were sometimes subject to character flaws such as jealousy, which would lead to a biased assessment of an individual.

The overarching theme in all of what I described above is bias. This bias sometimes results in inadvertently giving an unfair appraisal of an individual, as opposed to willfully concocting false information about an individual due to malicious intent, which is unbecoming of any Muslim, let alone a pious imam.

To conclude, our stance regarding what took place between the imams should be as is stated in Al-Taj al-Subki’s Tabaqat al-Shaf’iyyah: “It would behoove you, oh seeker, to tread the path of etiquette with the past imams and not to give consideration to the speech of some of them against others, except if they bring clear proof. Subsequently, if you are able to give an alternate explanation or interpret the criticism in a more favorable way, then do so. If not, then devote one page to what took place between them and move on, for you were not created for this. Busy yourself with that which concerns you and leave that which does not. A student of knowledge remains noble until he delves into that which occurred between the early scholars. You must be beware of devoting your attention to the disputes that took place between Abu Hanifah and Sufiyan al-Thawri, Malik and Ibn Abi Dhi’b, Ahmad ibn Salih and Al-Nasa’i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Al-Harith al-Muhasibi, and so on, until the time of Al-’Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salam and Al-Taqi ibn al-Salah, because if you busied yourself with that, I fear for your destruction, for those men are the eminent imams, and their statements have proper interpretations, some of which we may not have understood, so we should be pleased with them and remain silent about what occurred between them, just as is done regarding the disputes that occurred amongst the Companions (sahabah), may Allah be pleased with them.”

[Abbe]

Differences in madhab

And in this regard al-Subki wrote about al-Dhahabi (rahmatu Allah 'alayhima)
إنه لا ينبغي أن يُسمَع كلامه في حنفي ولا شافعي ولا تؤخذ تراجمهم من كتبه فإنه يتعصب عليهم كثيرا

[Ishaaq Ahmad]

Al-Thawri's censure of Abu Hanifah al-Kufi are not accepted, due to the same reason[/url]

Sufyaan ath Thawree رحمه الله was not the only muhaddith who criticised Aboo Haneefah. In fact, many aimma have criticised Aboo Haneefah, who is actually dhaeef in the science of hadeeth. For example, Imaam Ahmad referred to him as "Aboo Fulanah", and Ibn Abee Shaybah has an entire chapter in his Musannaf entitled "Radd ala Abee Haneefah".

For more information please read this http://www.umm-ul-qura.org/info/user...asp?art_id=153

[Joshimitsu]

Sufyaan ath Thawree رحمه الله was not the only muhaddith who criticised Aboo Haneefah. In fact, many aimma have criticised Aboo Haneefah, who is actually dhaeef in the science of hadeeth. For example, Imaam Ahmad referred to him as "Aboo Fulanah", and Ibn Abee Shaybah has an entire chapter in his Musannaf entitled "Radd ala Abee Haneefah".

For more information please read this http://www.umm-ul-qura.org/info/user...asp?art_id=153

Salam,

I was told that Abu Hanifah was 'weak' in hadith from his own choosing. Hadith fabrications had reached such a level in Iraq that he did not consider it a reliable way of getting to the sunnah. Am I right in saying that this was a sentiment felt by his scholarly contemporaries in Iraq too, which is why they developed the methods of 'ray' and qiyas?