Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth

Go Back   Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth > Fiqh of Ahlulhadeeth & Comparative Fiqh > Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali Fiqh
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-01-2011, 02:36 AM
Muhammad Ibn Ali Muhammad Ibn Ali is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 600
Send a message via MSN to Muhammad Ibn Ali
Default Disblief in Khabar Al-Wahid (Ahad Ahadeeth)!

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Yesterday a brother (who is a hanafi) asked me the following questions:

1. If someone denies or disbelieves in khabar al-wahid (like disbelieving in punishment in grave) than does he become a kaafir (or a fasiq)?

2. Is it obligatory to believe in matters of aqeedah proven by ahad narrations with CERTAINTY?

3. What is the position of Hanafi madhhab with regard to ahad narrations?

4. What is the position of remaining 3 madhahib?

I hope to get a reply soon, inshaAllah.

جزاكم الله خيرا
__________________
Abu Umamah al-Bahili رضي الله عنه narrated that the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

أنا زعيم بيت في رَبَضِ الجنة لمن ترك المراء وإن كان مُحِقَّا، وبيت في وسط الجنة لمن
ترك الكذب وإن كان مازحًا، وبيت في أعلى الجنة لمن حَسُن خلقه
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-02-2011, 08:56 PM
Muhammad Ibn Ali Muhammad Ibn Ali is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 600
Send a message via MSN to Muhammad Ibn Ali
Default

I have recieved a mail containing numerous comments from classical scholars on ahad ahadeeth where they state that ahad narrations do not provide certain 'ilm and cannot be taken for 'aqeedah.


The scholars of the Hanafi School of thought Imam al-Sarakhsi (d 483 AH) (RH), the great Hanafi Imam and Mujtahid, refutes those who accept Khabar al-Āhād in matters of ‘Aqeedah. He explains the nature of Khabar al-Āhād and distinguishes between definite and indefinite sources as well as the difference between Tabligh and Khabar. Furthermore, on page 116 of Usūl al-Sarakhsi he says that those who deny mutawātir are kafir, but those that deny the truth of something established by āhād are not.

Imam Ibn Humām said: “The majority of scholars and muhadditheen mentioned that Khabar al-Wāhid doesn’t provide certainty without other indications, and that with them it could provide ‘ilm but not necessarily indisputable certainty”.

Imam Ibn Humām (RH) also said: “Khabar al-Wāhid doesn’t provide certainty but only doubt”

Imam al Bazdawi (RH) said: “The Wahid provides necessity in actions but not with ‘ilm (certain knowledge), and we explained that mashoor doesn’t provide ‘ilm, so āhād or Wahid certainly does not. The Wahid does, however, have possibility and he who denies this has misguided his mind and himself.”

Imam Alaa’ al-Din al- Samarqandi [d. 540 / 1145] (RH) said: “And from the āhād, if they are concerned with actions then they are a proof (Hujjah) but if they are concerned with ‘Aqeedah then they are not a proof (hujjah) for belief as they don’t give rise to certainty.”

The contemporary scholar Mufti Muhammad Ibn Adam al Kawthari says: “The Āhād or solitary Hadith (also known as Khabar al-Wahid) is the Hadith which fails to fulfill the requirement of Mutawātir. Āhād Hadith may be sound (Sahih), good (Hasan) or weak (Da’eef). It is a Hadith which does not impart positive knowledge on its own unless it is supported by extraneous or circumstantial evidence.”


Other Hanafi School scholars who held similar positions according to secondary sources used in this work: Abd al Qahir al Baghdadi (d 5th Cen. AH), Ibn Atheer al Jazari (d 606 AH) (RH) in Al Nihayah fi Gahrib al Hadith, Imam Al Izz Ibn Abd al Salam (d 660 AH) (RH) who did not take Khabar al Āhād of themselves into matters of ‘Aqeedah; Ala al Din Ibn Abidin (d 1306 AH).

The scholars of the Shafi’i School of thought Imam an Nawawi (RH) said: “the majority of Muslim scholars and leading authorities (al- muhaqqiqun wal-aktharūn) held that unless the Sahih is of the mutawātir category, it shall remain probable and can never attain the level of certainty”.

Imam an Nawawi (RH), in the introduction to his famous Sharh Sahih Muslim responds to the opinion of Ibn al-Salah (RH) , who said that the ahādith narrated by Bukhari and Muslim imply certainty in and of themselves. Thus, Imam Nawawi after discussing this statement of Ibn al-Salah (RH) said: "What the shaykh said in this issue is against what the scholars said. Most of them said that the non-Mutawātir Hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim, imply conjecture (Dhann) since it is Āhād, and the āhād implies nothing but the conjecture (Dhann). This is based on what was already known and agreed upon. This rule applies without distinguishing between Bukhari, Muslim or others. However, their Hadiths are enough to be taken in the Ahkam (rule)."



Imam Al-Aamidi (RH) stated that "The Ummah's scholars say that Khabar ul-Wahid gives conjecture (dhann) with the exception of some of the Dhahiri’s and Ahmad bin Hanbal, in one of two narrations."

The position on doctrinal matters of the Shafi’i school and the Ash’ari in Aqeedah is conveyed by āhād reports is given by Imam al-Bayhaqi (RH): “The perspicuous scholars (Ahl al-nazar) among our [Ash`ari or Shafi`i] companions relinquish the use of lone-narrated reports as proofs in the divine Attributes if such reports do not have a foundation in the Qur'an or in scholarly consensus. Instead, they interpret them figuratively.”

Imam ibn Khafif (d 371 AH) (RH) said: 89. Lone-narrator reports (āhād) make practice obligatory, but not knowledge (yűjib al-`amal lâ al-`ilm), while mass-narrated (mutawâtir) reports make both knowledge and practice obligatory.


Imam Jurjaani (RH) says, in likeness to Imam Sarakhsi of the Hanafi school, that denying something imparted by āhād narrations isn’t kufr as it doesn’t engender yaqeen, whereas denying something established by tawātur (recurrence) is kufr because it is Qat’i (decisive). He also notes that because the ahad necessitates action but not ‘ilm it is therefore not an evidence in matters of belief (la yakunu hujantun fi masa’il al- I’tiqadiyyah).

Imam Al Khateeb Al Baghdadi (RH) says: “Khabar al-Āhād is where one of the conditions of mutawātir is missing even if a group narrated this report…they provide an obligation to act upon them, but are not obligatory of ‘ilm (do not provide certainty).”

Imam Al Juwayni (RH) says: “Akhbār āhād provide necessity for actions, but do not provide necessity in ‘ilm because a mistake is possible”.

Imam Al-Ghazaali in his first Usūl work al-Mankhul, written at the age of 26, said: "Some claim that Khabar ul-Ahaad imply certainty. This is impossible.” Many years later, in his other very famous work on Usūl (but not only other work on Usūl) he said in Al- Mustasfa: "Khabar Al-Ahaad does not imply certainty. This is a basic fact of its definition."


The scholars of the Maliki School of thought Imam Ibn `Abd al-Barr (RH) states in his book At-Tahmid (1:7) the position of the Ahl Us Sunnah Wal Jamaah: “What the majority of the people of knowledge believe is as follows: Some hold that the lone-narrated hadith make practice obligatory but not knowledge (yűjib al-`amal dűna al-`ilm). This is the position of al-Shafi`i and the vast majority of the jurists and the scholars of principles (Usūl ul-Fiqh). To them, the lone-narrated hadith does not make knowledge obligatory by itself and except on oath, providing definite preclusion of falsehood, and if there is no disagreement concerning it.”

Imam Ash Shatibi (RH) said that it doesn’t provide certainty, mentioning examples about the ahādith that were rejected by the companions despite being graded Sahih by some. He says that the book (Qur’an) is maqtoo’ bihi – or certain - and the Sunnah can be doubtful in the āhād narrations and certainty cannot be built upon these elements of the Sunnah.

Imam Ash-Shatibi says: "Anything related to Usul ud- Deen (Aqeedah) has to be conclusive”. He says also: "The Daleel could be either Ahaad or Mutawātir. If it is Ahaad, then it obvious that it doesn't imply certainty."


Imam Abu Al Walid ‘Al Baji (RH), in speaking of the Maliki school at large said: “The Madhab of Imam Malik is to accept Khabar al-Wahid in that it is obligatory to act upon it, but it doesn’t provide certainty by itself and this is what all scholars mentioned”.

Imam Al Qurtubi (RH) said: “The Ahkaam of the shariah can be taken by ghalabat ad-Dhann (preponderant knowledge), as is engendered by forms of Qiyas and Khabar Wahid.”


The following Maliki school scholars also agree with this view per the secondary sources:

• Abul Hussain Ibn Ali At Tayyib (d 436 AH) (RH)
• Yahya Zakariyyah al Ansari (RH)
• Imam al Kasa’i (d 6th Cen. AH) (RH)
• Shams Uddin Ibn Ahmad al Mullai (RH)
• Abdur Rahman Ibn Jad al Magrib Ibn al Banani (RH)
__________________
Abu Umamah al-Bahili رضي الله عنه narrated that the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

أنا زعيم بيت في رَبَضِ الجنة لمن ترك المراء وإن كان مُحِقَّا، وبيت في وسط الجنة لمن
ترك الكذب وإن كان مازحًا، وبيت في أعلى الجنة لمن حَسُن خلقه
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-03-2011, 12:40 AM
al-boriqee al-boriqee is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhammad Ibn Ali View Post
[FONT="Garamond"][SIZE="4"][I]بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Yesterday a brother (who is a hanafi) asked me the following questions:

1. If someone denies or disbelieves in khabar al-wahid (like disbelieving in punishment in grave) than does he become a kaafir (or a fasiq)?
by principle yes, anyone who denies an aspect of creed is a kaafir. However when it comes to issues where even qualified Muslims have fallen into this error, then the scholars have properly analyzed such situations whereby such people are excused under t'awilaat. In other words, because a portion of the Muslim community may fall into this denial which can be properly identified as kufr, it is only due to a huge impetus of scholarly imput into the discussion such as khabrirul-waahid which would isolate the Muslims to be excused under such t'awilaat or "interpolations of understanding".

Thus while in principle we make known that it is kufr to deny any aspect of creed, whether it is ahd or not, we likewise don't go around calling ahnaaf or others kuffar for denying these certain aspects if their angle of approach is coming from them following their own scholars whom they feel are correct in the matter.

Quote:
2. Is it obligatory to believe in matters of aqeedah proven by ahad narrations with CERTAINTY?
Yes. The reason why? Because in reality, the basis for classifying the "strength" of revelation as either being "ilm dhaani" or "ilm yaqeeni" is based on a purely Aristotelian philosophical jargon. That is why this philosophical incoherence of absolute sophistry in trying to interpret religion was accepted by all factions of the ahlul-kalaam movement. That is why 98 percent of the scholars you have mentioned in the second post where outright M'utazilah (who are the direct culprits of innovating this repugnant doctrine into the Muslim world), and the majority of the rest of them were Maturidi or Ash'ari (however most of them were maturidi then mutazilah and ash'ari respectively). The remaining 2 percent like al-Qurtubee or an-Nawawee and maybe a couple of other names were somewhat influenced by the ideologies of these ahlul-kalaam movements.

The entire Nation of Islam, the Ummah of Muhammad up until the time of Imaam at-Tirmidhee did not identify aspects of the revelation of Allah as revealed by the tongue of Muhammad and expressed in the hadeeth literature as "ilm dhanni" i.e. speculative/abstract knowledge and "ilm qati'i" i.e. certain/definitive knowledge. Salvation lies on holding on to the sunnah, the path, the understand, the mode of conduct and thinking to the way of the salaf and disasters in conflict and polemics arise in adopting other ideologies that are not congruent with what the righteous forefathers of this nation built Islam upon.

In the view of the salaf of this nation, it did not matter whether the Messenger of Allah mentioned something once or 10 times just as it did not matter whether Allah mentioned something once or 10 times.

Quote:
3. What is the position of Hanafi madhhab with regard to ahad narrations?
there is no position in the hanafi madhaab because this topic is not a topic of fiqh and even though it spills over to how a mujtahid forms a legal opinion (like the difference between fard and waajib as viewed by the ahnaaf), the basis on the doctrine of khaabirul-waahid actually is based on the doctrine of the scholar in question. If they are maaturidi, then it means that they do not accept such narrations in aqeedah. If they are athari, then they will accept narrations in aqeedah as certain. However since the majority of today's Hanafis are maturidis, then if the issue is judged based on the "majority", then according to this criteria, then the position is that ahad narrations are rejected or not viewed as ilm qati'i. However, the Hanafi madhaab has nothing to do with maturidi aspersions or athari aspersion, it is purely a fiqh based madhaab and the ideological persuasion of a scholar on the topic is going to affect their opinion on the subject.


Quote:
4. What is the position of remaining 3 madhahib?
Again, there is no position except for the hanbalis. However the others, there is no position because these madhaabs are entirely fiqh based. Thus the position is laid based on the ideological persuasion of the scholar. The ahlul-hadeeth such as Ibnu-Salaah (whom an-Nawawee attempted to refute) and who Ibnu-Salaah was likewise a Shafi'ee, was that ahad narrations are to be accepted without question. But this is because Ibnu-Salaah was a pure athari, and he was not ash'ari, whereas an-Nawawee's doctrinal leanings were more towards the views of the Ash'aris on this topic.This difference in ideological thought would expalin why two shafi'iees differed on the topic, and has nothing to do with the rules fo fiqh developed by the madhaab.

As for the Hanbalis, their madhaab is different because their madhaab incorporates doctrine into it.
The Hanbalis have two views on the topic, but they both land towards the same objective that differs from the rest

1. a group of them accepted the innovated notions of the M'utazilah in dividing knowledge of revelation into ilmu-qati'i and ilmu-dhanni. One such example is our Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen rahimahullah.

2. another group did not accept the idea of categorizing the revelation into dhanni or qati'i, rather the whole of the shariah is not bound to properties of other forms of creation and other forms of knowledge whereby some type of news can be speculative or concrete. rather revelation is revelation, whether it is said or enacted once or a multiplicity of times, and thus the nature of Allah's imparting of knowledge of the revelation is not determined by quantity and this would be likening Allah's rendition of knowledge to how the creation imparts knowledge.

As for the Ahlul-hadeeth ulema, then all of them from what I know side with this group of the hanbalis in relegating the division of this knowledge as baseless.

asalamu alaikum
__________________
ابو نعيمة علي البريكي


"I have debated with the Ash'aris
and it has become clear to me that they believe that Allah does not exist"


May Allah hasten the Muslims back to the path
that granted victory to them before.


http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-05-2011, 02:53 AM
abu_tamim abu_tamim is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 132
Default

By Mufti Muhammad Ibn Adam

Question: Could you please explain the difference between Ahad and Mutawatir Hadith? In particular, could you specify how many narrations make a Hadith Mutawatir? Also, are Ahad hadith taken into Aqeedah or only Mutawatir?

Answer: In the Name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

A Hadith Mutawatir (continuous) is that which is related by whole groups of individuals from whole group of individuals, in multiple contiguous channels of transmission leading back to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give peace), such as that the sheer number of separate channels at each stage of transmission is too many for it to be possible for all to have conspired to fabricate the Hadith.

As such, a Hadith is classified as Mutawatir only when it fulfils the following conditions:

1) It is reported by such a large number of narrators that under normal circumstances it would be impossible for them to conspire a lie.

2) Such a number exists throughout the chain of narration, i.e. from the beginning to the end.

3) The reporters must base their report on sense perception, i.e. on something that is heard or seen.

4) That the narration necessitates certain knowledge for the listener. (Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani, Sharh Nukhba al-Fikr, P.21).

Example of a Mutawatir Hadith is:

“Whoever lies about me deliberately must prepare himself for a place in the fire of Hell” (Sahih al-Bukhari & Sahih muslim).

Imam an-Nawawi (Allah have mercy on him) states that this narration has been narrated from approximately 200 Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) (Introduction to Sahih Muslim).

The Ahad or solitary Hadith (also known as Khabar al-Wahid) is the Hadith which fails to fulfil the requirement of Mutawatir. Ahad Hadith may be sound (sahih), good (hasan) or weak (Da’eef). It is a Hadith which does not impart positive knowledge on its own unless it is supported by extraneous or circumstantial evidence.

According to the majority of the four Sunni schools, acting upon Ahad is obligatory even if Ahad fails to engender positive knowledge provided certain conditions are met.

As far as establishing matters of Aqidah is concerned, the majority of the scholars are of the view that Ahad may not be relied upon as the basis of belief (aqidah), for matters of belief must be founded in certainty. Therefore, issues that revolve between belief (iman) and disbelief (kufr) can not be proven by Ahad narrations (Fawatih al-Rahmut, 2/136).

However, this refers to beliefs on which the actual Iman is dependent. As for Ahad narrations pertaining to subsidiary matters which are not essential to belief such as intercession (shafa’ah), etc..., these must be accepted and believed. Anyone who denies them is a sinner (fasiq) but not a Kafir, as he denies something which is not decisively proven (Abu Zahra, Usul al-Fiqh, P.85).

None of the previous scholars rejected any belief that was not established by Hadith Mutawatir. In fact, the great Hadith expert, Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (Allah have mercy on him) states in his monumental commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari that, Ahad narrations are a source of evidence when the Ummah accepts it and acts upon it. It then has the power to become firm belief (Fath al-Bari, V.13, P.234).

Many beliefs have been established by Ahad narrations, yet they have not been rejected by the great scholars of this Ummah. Beliefs such as the intercession (shafa’ah) of the blessed Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give peace), descriptions of the angels, Jinn, Jannah, Jahannam, and much more.

In conclusion, matters of Aqidah can and have been proven by Ahad narrations and accepted by the majority of the Ummah. Yes, those integrals of Aqidah on which an individual’s Iman depends can not be established by Ahad narrations. As a result, denying beliefs that are proven by Ahad will not constitute Kufr, rather a sin.
And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best.

http://www.central-mosque.com/aqeedah/aahad.htm

'Alaykum Salam.

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-05-2011, 07:01 PM
Abdurrahman Abdurrahman is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Delaware, USA
Posts: 124
Default

I believe that the hadeeth about "actions are by intentions" as well as the hadeeth of Jibreel are both ahad narrations.
__________________

أحزان قلبي لا تزول - حتى أبشر بالقبول
و أرى كتابي باليمين - وتقرعيني بالرسول
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-05-2011, 08:07 PM
abdul qaadir abdul qaadir is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 132
Default

Rejecting the Ahad narrations in aqeedah is an innovation. This why misguided groups like Hizb ut Tahrir don't believe in the punishment of the grave, because it is based on an Ahad narration (this alone is disputable). So people with this weird and astray methodology will emphasize seeking refuge in Allaah from the punishment of the grave in every Salaat, but consider it sinful to believe in it!!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-05-2011, 09:03 PM
'abd al-Haadi Lyallpuri 'abd al-Haadi Lyallpuri is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: پاکستان
Posts: 197
Default

as-salamu 'alaikum. Haven't posted here in a while. A couple of years back I submitted a question to Islam Today regarding Ahaad hadiths. This is the response they gave, it may be beneficial:

Quote:
Al-Salām `Alaykum wa rahmah Allah wa Barakātuh.



The majority of scholars agree that single narrator hadīth do not provide absolute knowledge. This is because no narrator, no matter how trustworthy, is infallible.



Any statement taken on its own can be true or false. For example, the sentence “Zayd loves radishes” is true if Zayd really does love radishes and is false if Zayd does not like them. A person who knows nothing about Zayd will have no idea whether this statement is true or false. It is equally likely either way.



However, if the person who told you that Zayd loves radishes is a person who you know and trust and is a person who never lies, you are more likely to believe the statement. If you also know that this person is Zayd’s best friend, then you are almost sure to believe him. If you see him at the shop buying groceries for his friend Zayd and he is putting a lot of radishes in the trolley, then there would remain no doubt in your heart. There is still, however, the possibility that the statement is false, but that possibility is so remote that you have no reason to entertain it.



This is because different types of evidence can strengthen a report. It is because of this very reason that the science of hadīth criticism came about. Scholars of hadīth grade single-narrator hadīth on the basis of how likely it is that the hadīth are true. These grades include authentic (sahīh), good (hasan), weak (da`īf), rejected (munkar) and fabricated (mawdū`).



The evidence used by hadīth scholars are factors like the reliability and honesty of the narrators, the ability to demonstrate that the narrators had met one another without any break in the chain, and the absence of any other statement that goes against the narration.



A hadīth that fulfills the rigorous requirements of authenticity provides us with overwhelming belief that the hadīth is true. There is no justifiable reason for us to assume otherwise. Though these hadīth do not provide absolute certainty, the overwhelming belief in their reliability that they provide us requires us to act upon their dictates. In Islam, we are expected to act upon this overwhelming belief.



There are many examples where Muslims are commanded to act upon less than absolutely certain knowledge. A judge, for example, is commanded to pass a ruling based on the testimony of witnesses whom he determines to be trustworthy and reliable.



Imam al-Shāfi`ī said:



As for what is found in the Sunnah reported by specific individuals in matters wherein it is possible for disagreement to exist and wherein interpretation is possible, when it comes to us from single narrators, then I would say that the evidence it contains has the force to make us abide by it, so they cannot reject what is stated therein any more than they can reject the testimony of a reliable witness. This is not because there is absolute certainty in the report like there is in the text of the Qur’ān or a report of the general masses about Allah’s Messenger. If anyone is in doubt about this point, we would not tell him to repent. We would say: If you were a person of knowledge, you would have no right to doubt, just as you have no right if you were a judge to offer a judgment except in accordance with the testimony of reliable and trustworthy witnesses. Though a mistake is a possibility, he must pass judgment on the face value of their honesty, and Allah assumes responsibility over what you cannot perceive from them.



Also, we know that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) used to dispatch his governors and messengers to the various provinces and states. These were single individuals whom he sent to the people to teach them their religion. The people were commanded to follow these individuals receive instruction from them. If the report of single reliable narrators did not require us to act upon it, then these people would not have been able to benefit from the individuals whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) sent to them.



We know that when the order for changing the Qiblah from Jerusalem to Mecca was revealed, a single person went to a mosque where the people were in the middle of prayer. The imam immediately walked around the congregation and faced the opposite direction. The members of the congregation all turned about in their places. This is a clear case where the people acted upon the report of one reliable narrator. The Prophet (peace be upon him) did not object to this.



As for matters of belief that are established with single narrator hadīth, we are required to believe them, since belief is an action of the heart. Failure to believe a reliable report of the Prophet (peace be upon him) about matters of the Unseen is sinful, since we are commanded to obey the Messenger and follow him. Allah says: “He does not speak of his own accord. It is merely revelation that is revealed to him.” Here we have every reason to believe the Prophet (peace be upon him) said something, but we refuse to believe it because of our own desires or our supposedly “rational” arguments. However, if a person rejects something that is only established by a single-narrator hadīth, we will not be able to declare him an unbeliever, like we would if he rejected something absolutely certain about he faith, like an unambiguous verse of the Qur’ān. This does not mean that he is free from sin for doing so or that he is not fallen into in innovation in his belief.



There is no disagreement between the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamā`ah about accepting hadīth in `aqidah (matters of belief).



However, scholars of the Ash`arī and Māturīdī schools differ with the methodology of the Salaf in that they do not accept single-narrator hadīth (akhbār al-ahād) as proof for matters of `aqidah that define what we as Muslims must believe. Please understand that they are not saying that Muslims should not believe what those hadīth say, but merely that a person will not become an unbeliever by rejecting the meaning of one of those hadīth. In their opinion, however, a person may be sinful for doing so.



Therefore, when an Ash`arī says that he does not accept single-narrator hadīth in `aqidah, he means that he does not consider rejection of the meaning of one of those hadīth an act of unbelief (kufr). Basically, they are defining “aqidah” in a stricter sense of “what a person is required to believe in order to be considered a Muslim”. They accept those hadīth in establishing matters of `aqidah in the broader sense of “what a Muslim should believe”.



Please keep in mind that the Salaf made no such distinction. The correct position is that we must believe everything that the Prophet (peace be upon him) came with. If the hadīth is authentic, then we must accept it.



Fatwā Department Research Committee of IslamToday chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhāb al-Turayrī
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-06-2011, 07:24 AM
al-boriqee al-boriqee is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'abd al-Haadi Lyallpuri View Post
as-salamu 'alaikum. Haven't posted here in a while. A couple of years back I submitted a question to Islam Today regarding Ahaad hadiths. This is the response they gave, it may be beneficial:
barakallahu feekum.

however there are some problems here from the athari point of view

Quote:
Al-Salām `Alaykum wa rahmah Allah wa Barakātuh.

The majority of scholars agree that single narrator hadīth do not provide absolute knowledge. This is because no narrator, no matter how trustworthy, is infallible.
its true that the majority of ulema now, hold this view.

Quote:
Any statement taken on its own can be true or false.
true

Quote:
For example, the sentence “Zayd loves radishes” is true if Zayd really does love radishes and is false if Zayd does not like them. A person who knows nothing about Zayd will have no idea whether this statement is true or false. It is equally likely either way.
That's fine and dandy, the problem here is that the authority of the messenger in this reasoning is being likened to the authority of anyone of us here, Imaam Maalik already said
"everyone's statement is accepted or rejected EXCEPT the occupant of this grave (meaning the Messenger alaihi salatu salam)"

Quote:
However, if the person who told you that Zayd loves radishes is a person who you know and trust and is a person who never lies, you are more likely to believe the statement. If you also know that this person is Zayd’s best friend, then you are almost sure to believe him. If you see him at the shop buying groceries for his friend Zayd and he is putting a lot of radishes in the trolley, then there would remain no doubt in your heart. There is still, however, the possibility that the statement is false, but that possibility is so remote that you have no reason to entertain it.
this is all understandable, the problem here again, is that the statement of all humans is being equalled in authoratativeness to the statement of the Messenger of Allah. and we already know this to be patently false.

Quote:
This is because different types of evidence can strengthen a report. It is because of this very reason that the science of hadīth criticism came about. Scholars of hadīth grade single-narrator hadīth on the basis of how likely it is that the hadīth are true. These grades include authentic (sahīh), good (hasan), weak (da`īf), rejected (munkar) and fabricated (mawdū`).
It may be that the general construct of words above excluded the shaykh hafidhahullah to highlight the details regarding these aspect of mustalahul-hadeeth. However it is necessary to clarify as misunderstanding in this topic has dier consequences than other topics. The science of hadeeth did NOT come about on the basis of various multiple narrations strengthening a khabr. The muhaditheen did grade riwayaat to be sahih, hasan, da'if, munkar, or mawdu, but NOT on the basis of its multiplicity factor. Usually, ahd narrations that are truely ahd are placed as shaadh, which is a specific type of weakness.

The evidence used by hadīth scholars are factors like the reliability and honesty of the narrators, the ability to demonstrate that the narrators had met one another without any break in the chain, and the absence of any other statement that goes against the narration.

Quote:
A hadīth that fulfills the rigorous requirements of authenticity provides us with overwhelming belief that the hadīth is true.
the hadeeth of niyyah is an ahd hadeeth. the rigorous forms of principles utilized by the muhaditheen to judge a hadeeth has very very very very little to do with how many people in each stage of its transmission has narrated it.

Quote:
There is no justifiable reason for us to assume otherwise.
according to the information presented above, there is really no justifiable reason for these claims to begin with.

Quote:
Though these hadīth do not provide absolute certainty, the overwhelming belief in their reliability that they provide us requires us to act upon their dictates. In Islam, we are expected to act upon this overwhelming belief.
This can only be said if someone views the scriptures of the Qur'an nd Sunnah through the lense of how the falsafiyyah understood the topic of certainty and doubt. In the language of the people of 'itizaal, they viewed that having belief in what is "dhanni" i.e. what is normally translated as "speculative" knowledge is therefore doubtful and not worthy to emphasis certitude in. However, if one reads the Qur'an and Sunnah understood through the eyes of the arab, the term "dhann" does NOT mean speculative or doubtful, it actually has the meaning of certitude. THUS, dhann is a type of certitude which is why the classical sunnis among the ahlul-hadeeth, the atharis, the hanbalis, the classical shafi'ees, and maalikis did not understand how the people who formed this principle of khabrul-waahid amounts to doubtful knowledge formed their opinion because they were operating under a totally different framework of usool and understanding of language, the differences of which amount to much more than mere semantics.

Quote:
There are many examples where Muslims are commanded to act upon less than absolutely certain knowledge. A judge, for example, is commanded to pass a ruling based on the testimony of witnesses whom he determines to be trustworthy and reliable.
I don't think this has anything to do with a singularly narrated statement made by the Messenger of the Lord of the Universe alayhi salatu salam.

In fact, this is an argument that does not coincide with what is being claimed here. If the judge is commanded on acting on something less than knowledge on a testimony of a witness, we will also consider that ANY Muslim judge will view a singularly narratd report form the Messenger of Allah MORE WIEGHTIER than the testimony of this witness. Thus even if we compare a khabrul-waahid of a normal human, we don't view it the same as a khabrul-waahid of the Messenger of Allah, and this is primarily where the problem is, which is that according to this methodology, we ipso facto liken the statement of Allah's Messenger to the statement of any one of us, which anyone who has a shred of faith knows is patently false from the jump.

Quote:
Imam al-Shāfi`ī said:

As for what is found in the Sunnah reported by specific individuals in matters wherein it is possible for disagreement to exist and wherein interpretation is possible, when it comes to us from single narrators, then I would say that the evidence it contains has the force to make us abide by it, so they cannot reject what is stated therein any more than they can reject the testimony of a reliable witness. This is not because there is absolute certainty in the report like there is in the text of the Qur’ān or a report of the general masses about Allah’s Messenger. If anyone is in doubt about this point, we would not tell him to repent. We would say: If you were a person of knowledge, you would have no right to doubt, just as you have no right if you were a judge to offer a judgment except in accordance with the testimony of reliable and trustworthy witnesses. Though a mistake is a possibility, he must pass judgment on the face value of their honesty, and Allah assumes responsibility over what you cannot perceive from them.
This is either a misquotation or misunderstanding of Shafi'ees position precisely because in the madhaab and view of Shafi'ee himself, he adopts the use of khabrul-ahad as being certain. Moroever, it seems that what Shafi'ee is talking about here, according to the wording above, is speaking on the difference in the devaluing of the weight of authoratativeness from the extractions and deductions of the mujtahideen in fiqh, and not necessary the actual riwayaat, wallahul-alim

Quote:
Also, we know that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) used to dispatch his governors and messengers to the various provinces and states. These were single individuals whom he sent to the people to teach them their religion. The people were commanded to follow these individuals receive instruction from them. If the report of single reliable narrators did not require us to act upon it, then these people would not have been able to benefit from the individuals whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) sent to them.
This seems to be more like the explanation provided by Harris Hamaam, which is acceptable and understandable. There is only one problem here. The advocates that propound khabrul-ahad are propounding it in order to negate acting or believing in them, which is inherently opposite of the position stated here.

Quote:
We know that when the order for changing the Qiblah from Jerusalem to Mecca was revealed, a single person went to a mosque where the people were in the middle of prayer. The imam immediately walked around the congregation and faced the opposite direction. The members of the congregation all turned about in their places. This is a clear case where the people acted upon the report of one reliable narrator. The Prophet (peace be upon him) did not object to this.

As for matters of belief that are established with single narrator hadīth, we are required to believe them, since belief is an action of the heart. Failure to believe a reliable report of the Prophet (peace be upon him) about matters of the Unseen is sinful, since we are commanded to obey the Messenger and follow him. Allah says: “He does not speak of his own accord. It is merely revelation that is revealed to him.” Here we have every reason to believe the Prophet (peace be upon him) said something, but we refuse to believe it because of our own desires or our supposedly “rational” arguments. However, if a person rejects something that is only established by a single-narrator hadīth, we will not be able to declare him an unbeliever, like we would if he rejected something absolutely certain about he faith, like an unambiguous verse of the Qur’ān. This does not mean that he is free from sin for doing so or that he is not fallen into in innovation in his belief.

There is no disagreement between the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamā`ah about accepting hadīth in `aqidah (matters of belief).
this is understandable and acceptable

Quote:
However, scholars of the Ash`arī and Māturīdī schools differ with the methodology of the Salaf in that they do not accept single-narrator hadīth (akhbār al-ahād) as proof for matters of `aqidah that define what we as Muslims must believe. Please understand that they are not saying that Muslims should not believe what those hadīth say, but merely that a person will not become an unbeliever by rejecting the meaning of one of those hadīth. In their opinion, however, a person may be sinful for doing so.

Therefore, when an Ash`arī says that he does not accept single-narrator hadīth in `aqidah, he means that he does not consider rejection of the meaning of one of those hadīth an act of unbelief (kufr). Basically, they are defining “aqidah” in a stricter sense of “what a person is required to believe in order to be considered a Muslim”. They accept those hadīth in establishing matters of `aqidah in the broader sense of “what a Muslim should believe”.

Please keep in mind that the Salaf made no such distinction. The correct position is that we must believe everything that the Prophet (peace be upon him) came with. If the hadīth is authentic, then we must accept it.

Fatwā Department Research Committee of IslamToday chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhāb al-Turayrī

this is understandable and acceptable wal-hamdulillah

asalamu alaykum
__________________
ابو نعيمة علي البريكي


"I have debated with the Ash'aris
and it has become clear to me that they believe that Allah does not exist"


May Allah hasten the Muslims back to the path
that granted victory to them before.


http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.