Asalam Alaikum brother, I hope you are well. In terms of the first point, yes the muḥadith-thīn did reject all fabricated aḥādīth but they did not only accept ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth. They also accepted that which fell short of being ṣaḥīḥ such as the ḥasan ḥadīth and weak (ḍaʿīf) aḥādīth. Muḥaddith such as Imām Abū Dāwūd, Tirmidhī and al-Nasā’ī all accepted the weak ḥadīth and used it as proof when a ṣaḥīḥ/ḥasan could not be found. He does not say this, rather he says: If a mujtahid uses a ḥadīth as proof in aḥkām it cannot be conceived that it be ṣaḥīḥ or ḥasan according to him even, after which it does not matter if there is weakness of fabrication in its chain. This claim itself need looking at. Mullah ʿAlī al-Qārī r was known to have a “lax” methodology in the authentication of ḥadīth. Which mujtahid accepted this ḥadīth. The muḥadith-thīn who rejected this ḥadīth were also faqih’s such as Ibn Kathīr. Mullah ʿAlī al-Qārī in his Asrar states that al-Mizzī said: “This is famous among the common people but we never saw it related in any book whatsoever.” Al-Mizzī is known as the Ḥāfiẓ of Islām. Could you please provide the reference to Mujaddid Ṣāḥibs Maktubat please (urdu and publication) if not could you please explain the masala that was derived by Mujjaddid Ṣaḥīb ؒ and also provide the name of Mufti Faiz Ahmads Book. This was the methodology of Imām Mālik. He would act according to the ʿAml of the people of Madinah because it was a multitude of scholars who were taught by senior tābiʿī’s who were taught by the companions therefore being tawatur in terms of action and a higher degree of authenticity than a solitary narration. We know that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, Imām Shāfiʿī and Imām Aḥmad differed with Imām Mālik on this due to the companions being spread over the other lands. Correct me if I am wrong but this was regarding the superiority of Abū Bakr al-Șiddīq h. The ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth again is only rejected if you are unable to do tatbīq between both. If tatbīq is possible then the ḥadīth is not rejected. ʿAqīdah and Aḥkām can be only extracted once the chain of narration itself is established. ʿAbdullāh bin Mubārak said: The chain of narration if from the religion, were it not for the chain anyone would be able to say anything. Before that Ibn Sīrīn: “We did not ask about the chain, but when the fitnah occurred they said: Name your men, so Ahlus-Sunnah were looked at and their ḥadīth were taken and the people of innovation were looked at and their ḥadīth was not taken. Yes there is a difference in what type of narrators and chains were permitted. Imām Mālik would not even consider taking from one who was an innovator and Imām Abū Ḥanīfah was probably stricter than him in this due to the place he lived. However Imām Aḥmad and later Imāms such as Bukhārī, Muslim and the authors of the four sunans would take from those who were considered innovators. A difference of opinion also existed of whether the mursal can be used as proof. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, Imām Mālik, Imām al-Awzāʿī and Imām al-Thawrī would consider the mursal as being proof as can be found in Imām Abū Dāwūd Risalah. Whereas Imām Shāfiʿī only considered the mursal as weak (possibly good for supporting evidence) unless a connected version of the same ḥadīth could be found. If I have made a mistake in what I have said pleas correct me. Allāh ﷻ knows best
as if their jahil shaykh - plagiarist - knows better than imams of hadith like suyuti and ibn nasir al-dimashqi. throw it back on their ugly faces.
actually i made a new independent standalone thread... away from any issue that was tied to it. so you're good tackling the topic at a generic and basic level. however, it's very interesting (and therefore welcome) that you took the discussion into fiqh methodology as well. in my OP, i was only keen on the ruling of the fuqaha and muhadditheen on if fabricating hadith is kufr and the hukm on the fabricator if he is ruled a kafir or not, to which brother Abu Hasan gave a response. ---- good you mentioned this. i wasn't aware of Ala Hazrat's statement as you mentioned above, but another shaykh didn't say it in these same words but he did comment in the same vein on the hadith of the old lady 1) the hadith of the old lady who came to the Prophet sal Allahu 3alaihi wa sallam and he told her (no direct quotes, all paraphrases) that old women will not enter jannah, and when she felt sad, he 3alaihis salam, told her that she will have her youth and beauty before entering jannah. according to this one shaykh that i know, he sees issues with this hadith as it goes against established aqidah, that it is impossible that Prophet sal Allahu 3alaihi wa sallam cause grief or anxiety etc. to an innocent person more so an old lady, even for a split second. 2) habashis say that the hadith of abu lahab sucking on his finger every monday cannot be used as a proof of Mawlid. they say people's overzealous interpretations contradict established verses and aqaid that the punishment of the dwellers of hellfire much less an enemy like abu lahab, shall not be lessened. plus even in the narration itself, it is not mentioned as a verified statement of fact, but as a dream that Hazrat Abbas radi Allahu 3anhu had. 3) i've heard apparently Imam Fakhruddin Ar-Razi has said that he'd rather believe that the narrators are liars than believe so in regards to a prophet, re the ahadith which mention Ibrahim 3alaihis salam عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ {قَالَ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم} " لَمْ يَكْذِبْ إِبْرَاهِيمُ إِلاَّ ثَلاَثَ كَذَبَاتٍ --- personally, once i did read a sharh of the hadith on abu lahab sucking his thumb and it addressed the exact point the habashis were addressing, and it stated that it is from the khasais of the Prophet 3alaihis salam, that he experiences this every monday (as mentioned in the dream). this was an intriguing subject to investigate for me, but not being a student of knowledge, i couldn't/didn't delve much on it due to various different reasons.
I do not know regarding the current issue that is being discussed but being a student of knowledge I would like to add a point to the Hadeeth methodology subject discussion. Regarding accepting the Fabricated hadeeth the Muhaddithin have a methodology in which they reject all "fabricated ahadeeth" and accept the "Saheeh Ahadeeth" but infact that is not what the Mujtahidin and the Fuqaha follow. The Mujtahidin even may accept a hadeeth which is declared to be "fabricated" by the Muhadithin and the Mujtahidin may also reject a Hadeeth which is declared to be "Saheeh" by the Muhadithin and we are Muqallidin are required to follow the Mujtahidin and not the Muhadithin contrary to the Salafis who follow the Muhadithin only and not the Mujtahidin. For instance, Imaam Mullah Ali Al Qari Hanafi RA. in his Maudhuaat book (in which he gathered all fabricated ahadeeth) he states that a Fabricated Hadeeth is accepted if a Mujtahid does Istidlaal from the fabricated hadeeth. For example the Hadeeth of Sayyidina Bilal Al Habashi Radhi Allahu Anhu that the sun did not rise when he did not give the Azaan سين بلال عند الله شين i.e. the "Seen" of Sayiyidina Bilal RA. is "Sheen" with Allah, referring to the incident when he used to recite As-hadu instead of Ash-hadu in the Azan, and the sun did not rise when he was stopped from giving the Azan... this hadeeth is declared to be "Fabricated" by the Muhadithin but the fact that we normally are ignorant of is that despite this hadeeth being rejected by the Muhadithin it still is accepted by the Mujtahidin who judge the Hadeeth by their own methodology and do not use or care for the methodology of the Muhadithin... Imaam Rabbani Mujaddid Alf Thaani Hanafi RA. who is on one of the higher levels of ijtihad has qouted this same hadeeth in his Maktubat letters and .has also derived a Mas'alah from this hadeeth which shows he accepted this Hadeeth despite the fabricated accusation and acted upon the Mas'alah he derived from this hadeeth. Mufti Faiz Ahmad Uwaisi Rizvi RA. has written a whole book on the Azan of Sayyidina Bilal RA. and in this book refuted those who rejected this Hadeeth of the Azaan of Sayyidina Bilal RA. despite the Muhadithin declaring this hadeeth to be fabricated. He also states that the reason for which Sayyidina Bilal RA. recited As-hadu instead of Ash-hadu was that his blessed mouth was injured due to the torture he endured for the sake of Allah, but Sayyidina Bilal RA. was fluent in Arabic and could recite correctly when he was not injured. Imaam Dar Al Hijrah Malik Ibn Anas al Asbahi RA. did not act upon many "Saheeh" Ahadeeth including those which he himself narrated in his Muwatta book with "authentic narrators" and those which were later even declared by Imaam Bukhari RA. to be the "Silsilah tudh Dhahab" i.e. on the level of gold i.e. most "Saheeh" ahadeeth of all time. The qoute of Imaam Maalik RA. العمل اثبت من الاحاديث i.e. The collective action of the inhabitants of Madinah Munawwarah is far superior proof than the ahadeeth. So he did not act upon those "Saheeh" ahadeeth which contradicted the Amal of Ahl Al Madinah Munawwarah. Imaam Ibn Rushd Al Jadd Maaliki RA. (teacher of Qadi Iyad Maliki RA. and Qadi ul Qudha of the Murabitun state of Andalusia) stated in his book Al Bayan Wat Tahseel that the Amal Ahl Al Madinah Munawwarah is on the level of Hadeeth Al Mutawatir and superior to the Khabar al Wahid hadeeth. The qoute of Imaam Maalik RA. is qouted by Alahazrat Imaam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi Hanafi RA. in his book named "Al Fadhl ul Mohibi Fi Ma'ana Idha Sahhal Hadeethu Fahuwa Madhhabi" where he also explained the Hadeeth methodology of the Mujtahidin in detail. (I don't know why do the serious sunni students of Hadeeth studies don't ever study this book of Alahazrat at all..? Even there is a whole leture of Mufti Fazle Subhan Qadri Sahab on this book in his mufti course on youtube). Alahazrat also states in Fatawa Rizviyyah that a "Saheeh" Hadeeth is rejected if it contradicts with an Aqeedah upon which there is Ijma. Imaam Ibn Battal Al Qurtubi Maaliki RA. is his commentary upon Saheeh Bukhari states Ahadeeth are to be ruled/judged though their Matn and not the chains of narrators i.e. if the Matn fulfills the requirements of the Qawaaid of the Mujtahidin then the hadeeth is Saheeh, irrespective of whatever stance the Muhadithin have taken through their methodology of Jarhu wa Ta'deel of the narrators in the chains. Imaam Shatibi Maaliki RA. (founder of the science of Maqasid Ash Shariah) states in his Muwafaqat book that all ahadeeth are rejected except those which fulfill the requirements of legal percepts (Qawaaid).
Just seen it in Ibn Ṣalāhs Kitāb al-Maʿrifa al-ʿAnwa ʿIlm al-Ḥadīth (English Translation pg.77). Be aware that the forged ḥadīth is the worst kind of the weak ḥadīth. It is not permissible under any circumstance for someone who is aware that a hadith is forged to relate it, unless coupled with a declaration that it is forged....
Imām Ḥākim al-Naysāburī divides his into ten categories as can be found in Kitāb al-Madkhal Ila Maʿrifa al-Iklīl pg.126 Those who fabricate ḥadīth on the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, It has been authenticated that the [Prophet] ﷺ said: Whoever deliberately lies upon me let him take his place in the fire. Al-Ḥākim further elaborated on the type of people who fabricated aḥādīth in this area, he said: Among those are them who committed major sins, From them the Heretics such as Mughriah bin Saʿīd al-Kūfī... Those who fabricated ḥadīth based on their whims and desires and invited people to themselves... Those who did it for the sake of Allāh ﷻ [as they claimed] and invited people to do good (Faḍāʿīl ʿAmāl)... Those who fabricated ḥadīth for the kings so they could get closer to them... Those who fabricated at a time when it was needed [for them] Second Ṭabaqah is those who took famous aḥādīth of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ with well known chains and fabricated other chains for them... A group from amongst the people of knowledge were driven by their greed to report from them who died before they were even born such as Ibrāhīm bin Hudbah... They are those who took authentic narrations of the ṣaḥābah and attributed them to the messenger of Allāh ﷺ... A group who would narrate form the tābi`ī in mursal from the Prophet ﷺ but would add the Ṣaḥābah in between thereby connecting the chain Refer to point 5 on Ibn Ḥibbāns list. Those who narrated alot from certain shaykhs, then they took [stole] hadiths that they did not hear from them until it could not be distinguished which they heard and did not Refer to point 9 on Ibn Ḥibbāns List. Ḥadīth is not their profession... they did not memorise and when a student of knowledge came to them and read upon a ḥadīth that was not theirs they acknowledged [that ḥadīth] as being theirs. Refer to point 12 on Ibn Ḥibbāns list. Imām Ḥākims list differs from Ibn Ḥibbāns in that he does not include those whose memory deteriorated at the end of their life, nor did he include the one who commits tadlīs or the one invites to his innovation. It seems Imām Ḥākim was more lenient in these categories as can be seen in his Mustadrak which is why Imām al-ʿIrāqī and Al-Biqāʿī said Ibn Ḥibbān is less lenient than al-Ḥākim. Allāh Knows Best
Asalam Alaikum Brother, Ibn Ḥibbān mentions twenty types unreliable narrators in his Al-Majruḥīn 1:58-83 They are Zindīqs, they did not believe in Allāh nor in the last day. They would enter cities and resemble themselves as people of knowledge.... Some of them were provoked by Shaytan to the point they would fabricate ḥadīth on the trustworthy shayūkh enticing other to do good, mentioning virtues, warning other about sins and the punishment for them thinking that they will be rewarded for this action From them are those who would fabricate ḥadīth upon the trustworthy (narrators) as saying of the messenger of Allāh ﷺ, They would stay up at night and concoct ḥadīth. These would forge aḥādīth for kings when an incident fell upon them or others but these did not make it a profession (to forge) like the previous type. They were overall known as worshippers and were heedless to memorisation. They would raise the mursal [make it marfūʿ] connect the mawqūf and transpose the chain... These were a group of trustworthy narrators whose memory deteriorated at the end of their life that they did not know what they were saying... they would mix their ṣaḥīḥ narrations with those which were mixed thereby deserving to be left. They would answer what ever they were asked and what they narrated or what they were told was from their own ḥadīth... Some of them would lie without knowing they had lie because they were not grounded in knowledge... They would narrate sound books from those shayūkh they had never met. Although the book itself was authentic [in attribution] they had never heard this from the shaykh nor had they ever seen them... Are those who transposed the ḥadīth and changed the chain of transmission... They are those who saw shayukh and heard from them, the then mentioned on their authority ḥadīth that was theirs but they did not hear it from them... They are those who wrote aḥādīth [in book format] and travelled for that purpose but they had lost their books. they would narrate that from other peoples book which they had neither memorised nor learnt such as Ibn Lahiah... They are those who make alot of error such that they deserved to be abandoned even though they are truthful in and of themselves... They are those who were tested with an evil son or evil warrāq they would fabricate ḥadīth and attribute it to them, the shaykh had trusted them... the shaykh in and of himself was trustworthy but it is not permissible to cite his reports as evidence as his authentic has been mixed with the fabricated... They are among those that forgeries were entered [upon their work] and they narrated it, when it became known to them he did not turn back on it... Some of them had a slip of tongue with out them knowing, when they were made aware of this they did not return back rather they carried on narrating with the mistake after he had been made aware. Anyone who is like this is a Liar and deserve to be abandoned... They are those who are open fāsiqs. even though they are truthful in their narrations... They are the concealers who narrate from those they did not see such as Hajjaj bin Arṭāh... They are the innovators, they invite the people towards their innovation such that they became the Imams of their innovation... They are the story tellers. they would fabricate ḥadīth and attribute them to the trustworthy... Ibn Ḥibbān them mentions the story of when Imām Aḥmad and Imām Yaḥyā bin Maʿīn confronted one of these people. After each point ibn Ḥibbān mentions evidences of each of type. Alot of what Ibn Ḥibbān mentions we see happening in these days such as point 5, 16 and 19. If I am correct it not even permissible to narrate fabricated narrations except that you tell the people that it is a fabricated narration. Weak ḥadīth have been allowed to be transmitted in cases such as Faḍāʿīl, Targhīb wa-Tarhīb and books such as Tārīkh provided they are not severe in their weakness.
jazak Allahu khayra. that's why it was nice to start a separate thread on the topic from a hadith-knowledge based perspective incidentally, the original context in the other thread was junaid jamshed's spiced up "narration" in urdu "translation" (something for which he allegedly did ruju3). of course he's not a rawi for us to be discussing this, and this issue of khateebs and muqarrirs adding their own spice on narrations and rulings would be a fiqh issue, not of hadith science and rijaal, but i believe the two are inter-connected - especially considering the times we live in and the kinds of orators and ulama we see around us.
what do you mean by 'exaggeration on the narration'? does it mean introducing words that are not part of the narration OR an explanation of the hadith that can be described as 'exaggeration'? in the first case, it remains to be seen if it is deliberate or accidental insertion regardless of the insertion being a valid explanation or an exaggeration. --- if someone introduced words in the hadith deliberately, and held it as a hadith - he will be guilty of fabrication and deemed a waDi'y. and if someone introduced it accidentally or unknowingly, they will be forgiven for carelessness or bad memory. idraj is a term used to describe inadvertent additions in hadith, usually inline explanation of the narrator. this is not a crime or sin. unknowingly is because someone's memory faltered, they mixed up two narrations, they misunderstood the meaning, etc. this is merely lack of rigour and this is also not a crime nor sin. ---- as for deliberate addition, knowing that it is not a part of hadith, but just wants to embellish the narration - it is haram to do so; especially if one holds it as a narrated hadith. and to avoid such a situation/allegation many scholars add: "this is the summary of the hadith" or "this is reworded" "portion of hadith" etc. to indicate that it may not be the exact hadith wording. for example: ملخصا or they trail it with a disclaimer: "aw kamaa qala alayhis'salatu wa's salam". ---- in any case, jumhur do not make takfir of those who fabricate hadith; though in the link you shared, imam juwayni (father of imam al haramayn) is among some who made takfir. more on this later. in sha'Allah.
also what is the ruling by the muhadditheen and/or fuqahaa on these kinds of things that we witness daily in our lives in present day - - mistranslation (using incorrect words or phrases in other languages for unsuspecting awam) - selective quoting and/or editing to tweak the meanings of the ahadith (this is the bedrock of most heresies) - tafasir and shuruh turned on their heads (this is the bedrock of wahabism)
this thread is an independent topic spinning off from this thread - https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/should-we-promote-daniel-haqiqatjou.15878/ i have copied the relevant part from my post there and edited it somewhat for this thread is exaggeration (غلو) on the narration of hadith kufr? let's elaborate further- exaggeration in positive sense (fadail, manaqib, etc.)? exaggeration to lead to a negative and disparaging narrative? is it even exactly the same thing as wad3 (وَضْع)? what about fabricating ahadith (from scratch)? is there ijma3 that every waade3 is kafir? i'm assuming that fabrication of an entirely new narration is a different matter than exaggerating on an existing narration. see wahabi take here - link @abu Hasan @Unbeknown
