In last week's article - under the title "Sheikhan Al-Albani and Al-Tahan and Takhreej Al-Hadith" - I dealt with the importance of understanding the context surrounding the comments that some scholars make on some books.
On the one hand, it may refer to intellectual, methodological, or personal disputes, and that the “personal” feature of these comments makes them more likely to be reviewed by the author himself in their content or in their tone later, which explains the importance of “critical reception” of such comments, and not isolating them from Its context: the context of intellectual and personal disputes, and that it is comments of a personal nature and not a speech to the public.
The importance of this critical reception is evident in two things:
The first: It defines the difference between the impulses of voyeurism and curiosity that may afflict some of the students and followers on the one hand, and an attempt to understand self-development and identify some of the vices of the self by the author of the commentary himself on the other hand.
The second: It moves the discussion from the framework of quarrels and partisanship to science and the ethics of science, and then balances the two values: the due respect for science and scientists together, and transcendence over the failures of some of them or some of the personal vices that are characteristic of humanity, and vary according to their disparity in refining themselves and curbing their fortunes on the one hand. And according to their mastery of science and their openness to the pluralism involved in religious sciences in particular;
It was even said: Knowledge is the knowledge of disagreement, and the more knowledgeable a scientist increases, the more possibilities expand and his perceptions of issues multiply.
This does not mean that they are equal in his right, but he realizes the relevance of at least some of them and is more receptive to disagreement.
Paradoxically, some branches of science itself have been employed in the rivalries and conflicts between the two currents referred to in last week's article, I mean the archaeologists among the Salafists who are out of imitation on the one hand, and the contemporary hadith scholars who adhere to the hadith and jurisprudential traditions on the other.
The most prominent of these branches that have been invested in the conflict is the “science of wounding and modification.” Jarh is “challenging” the narrator of a hadith in a manner that violates his justice or his discipline, in part or in whole.
The science of “al-jarh wa’l-ta’deel” is central to the sciences of hadith.
Especially in the criticism of the hadith in order to know its authentic from its weak, that is, it is specialized in weighing the “narrators of hadith” who transmitted the narratives during the first centuries, but some of those who called themselves archaeologists among the contemporary, sought to what they called “reviving” the science of wounding and modification, and employed it in criticizing their opponents, so they came out Firstly, they did not abide by its traditions and conditions, whether in terms of the terms and qualifications of the critic who criticizes and amends, or in terms of the criteria and foundations for wounding and amending.
Here, hadith scholars faced problematic issues related to the criteria for evaluating the wound (al-naqd): is it acceptable as an explanation or as a summary?
And from whom?
And what if the critics' statements contradict one narrator?
Are the words of the peers acceptable to each other?
That is, is contemporary enough to accept criticism on the pretext that the companion is more knowledgeable than his peer, or is it a reason for rejecting criticism?
The "Science of Jarh and Ta'deel" had faced a question about its legitimacy at first;
As it falls within a general moral principle, which is the sanctity of backbiting, which is your mention of your brother with what he hates, and then Imam Taqi al-Din ibn Daqiq al-Eid (702 AH) said: “The symptoms of Muslims are a pit from the pits of fire; two groups of people stood on its brink: the speakers and the rulers.” That is, the judges, then the historian Abu Dhar Sibt Ibn Al-Ajami (884 AH) came and added a third group, which is the historians;
“The people of history may have put people down or raised them up, either out of fanaticism or ignorance, or simply relying on unreliable transmission, or something else.”
In order to liberate this confusion, some of the great imams of hadith - such as Al-Tirmidhi (279 AH) and Al-Hakim Al-Nisaburi (405 AH) - were subjected to the question of the legitimacy of the wound and the amendment, and that it was excluded from the origin of backbiting, for a legitimate interest, which is distinguishing what must be accepted from the Sunnah from what is not permissible to accept, This is a public interest that takes precedence over the interest of amending and defaming witnesses in the judiciary.
Imam Shu’bah bin Al-Hajjaj - who is one of the scholars of Al-Jarh and Al-Ta’deel - used to say: “Come so that we can backbite God for an hour,” meaning the correction of the hadith narrators and its transmission.
The scholars of hadith here faced problematic issues related to the criteria for evaluating the wound (criticism): Is it acceptable as an explanation or as a summary?
And from whom?
And what if the critics' statements contradict one narrator?
Are the words of the peers acceptable to each other?
That is, is contemporary enough to accept criticism on the pretext that the companion is more knowledgeable than his peer, or is it a reason for rejecting criticism?
Under the pretext of envy and the difference of doctrine?
What concerns us - in this article - is the words of the scholars to each other.
It is an issue that was not limited to the narrators of the hadith only, but rather included various fields and times, until Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr al-Andalusi (463 AH) singled out a chapter for the ruling on “the words of scholars about each other.” More than one of the scholars transmitted it, and the linguist Ibn Jinni (392 e) He devoted a chapter called “Faults of the Scholars” in which he mentioned many narrations and sayings about “the great writers defaming each other, and disbelieving each other,” as understood by more than one, as it appears from the book of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (606 AH) and others.
Wakee bin Al-Jarrah used to say: “A man is not a scholar until he hears from someone older than him, someone below him, and someone like him.”
I see that the words of the hadith critics in this topic should be benefited from in setting critical criteria for dealing with the words of scholars in each era, especially since only the prophets and the righteous were spared the people of an era from that.
Imam Al-Dhahabi said: “If I wished, I would list some of that as pamphlets.”
In this issue, science is mixed with the ethics of science, and the scientific side is mixed with the personal or human side.
Souls are not stripped of fortunes, and scholars - like others - vary in refining themselves.
To illustrate this overlap, I will present three issues here:
The first issue: Since envy enters the soul, especially among the sons of the same profession, due to the competition between them for status, the hadith scholars weighed two principles here: a natural origin is the psychological factors and envy between peers, and a scientific origin is the narration about peers that helps to curb the soul And bypassing the psychological factors that usually arise between peers. Indeed, modern scholars have made a special kind of narration a special kind of narration, which is the exchange of narration between peers.
That each one of them narrates on behalf of his companion and vice versa, and they called it "the muddabbagh". And for the sake of this natural origin - I mean the vice of envy between peers - Ibn Abd al-Barr opened the chapter "The saying of scholars about each other" with a hadith that envy and hatred are the disease of nations, and this nation also spread He said that the world was once
If he meets someone who is above him in knowledge, that will be a day of booty, and if he meets someone who is like him, he will remember him, and if he meets someone below him, he will not be ashamed of him.
In order to be cut off from him so that people see that he has no need for him, and he does not study who is like him and who is less than him, so people perished. and who is like him.”
The second issue: that the peers talk about each other, in which there are two contradictory principles: the first: that closeness requires more knowledge;
Due to the impact of companionship and direct access.
The second: that "modernity is a veil", which is the phrase coined by the writers according to the hadith scholars.
Because of the conflict between these two origins, the words of peers became problematic, so it was necessary to be precise in order to distinguish between what belongs to the first origin and what belongs to the second origin.
The third issue: that in view of the previous conflicting principles, which are principles that combine the scientific and the moral and in which science overlaps with the ethics of science, there is a need to set the control criteria for not being carried away, whether in the generalization of saying that the critic’s words are accepted simply because of contemporaneity or closeness or his rejection absolutely because of them;
Especially since the statements of scholars in this regard have varied, as some of them have released the saying of refuting the words of peers with each other, and it is apparent from what Ibn Abd al-Barr mentioned in the aforementioned section.
From that - for example - what came on the authority of Ibn Abbas that he said: “Listen to the knowledge of scholars, and do not give charity to one another, for by the One in whose hand my soul is for them, they are more heterogeneous than goats in their flocks.” And Malik bin Dinar said: “The saying of scholars and readers is to be taken in everything except Saying some of them to each other, they have more envy than goats.
Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (911 AH) made the statement here, saying: “It has been established in the science of hadith that the words of peers about some of them are not offensive.”
But this launch is not good; For three things:
The first: that the predecessors and the hadith scholars of the regions preceded each other in many words
, to the extent that there were those who cared to list examples of this in different fields, as Ibn Abd al-Barr and al-Subki did, for example (in legal sciences), and as Ibn Jinni did (in language and literature), and wrote biographies Loads of examples too.
If “everyone who is accused of one of the bad schools of thought is proven against him, and his justice falls and his testimony is invalidated: it is necessary to leave most of the modernists of the cities,” as Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) said, or “the breach does not widen,” as the imam said. golden.
The second: The words of critics vary in their resources.
It is what came out in the event of anger.
Among them is what caused envy, as Ibn Abbas, Malik bin Dinar and others said.
Among it is what was issued on the side of interpretation, “from what is said in it does not require what the one said about it,” as Ibn Abd al-Barr said.
Rather, the conflict took place between the Companions and carried some of them against each other with the sword in interpretation and jurisprudence, and like all of that, imitation is not required in any of it.
It is not a place of lamentation, and it is regrettable that the hadith activity caused by Sheikh Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani - may God Almighty have mercy on him - decades ago and was called a “hadith renaissance”, which also caused the revival of disputes and the emergence of a dictionary of wounding and slandering many past and later scholars. Then some of the followers came and made that a subject of regret!
The third: The “path of literature,”
as Imam Taj al-Din al-Subki said, dictates that we not look at the words of some of our peers regarding each other.
Unless it comes with clear evidence, and yet interpretation and better conjecture are required here, and "the seeker of knowledge is still noble; until he delves into what happened between the past."
Therefore, the right thing to do is to detail and scrutinize the words of peers with each other.
To take care of the previously referred to conflicting principles, especially the principle that closeness deepens knowledge and experience of a person, and that closeness or contemporaryity is a veil, and disengagement between forbidden backbiting and backbiting for a legitimate or scientific interest rather than a personal one.
Ibn Abd al-Barr was one of the first to try to control the issue by distinguishing between two cases:
The first: If someone is known for his justice and his leadership, then someone like this is not to be considered unless there is fair evidence like the evidence that is proven in the testimonies that judges work with, and such a person must be believed in what he said.
For his innocence of malice, envy, enmity and competition.
The second: If his Imamate is not established and his justice is not known, then this is considered according to what the scholars have agreed upon, and he strives to accept what he brought according to what the examination leads to.
But Taj al-Din al-Sabki did not accept the words of Ibn Abd al-Barr.
Because the requirement of evidence is a recognized matter, rather it is necessary to examine the evidence that surrounds the criticism’s statement in the right of those whose justice has been proven.
It is not acceptable to say that the evidence witnesses that he is prejudiced against him, either because of sectarian fanaticism or something else.
Hence, the rule of the hadith scholars that “the wound takes precedence over the amendment” is not absolute, and the rule that “the words of the counterpart in the counterpart are rejected” also needs a restriction;
As the issue revolves around examining the evidence that the mind testifies that the like of it bears an offense against the one who wounded him, such as sectarian fanaticism or worldly competition that is between peers, and so on.
Perhaps Imam Al-Naqed Al-Dhahabi was one of the people who most referred to the rule of “the speech of one’s peers to one another,” and his expressions differed in that.
In some of them he said that the words of peers should be “folded and not narrated,” and that “folding it is better than broadcasting it.” And in some of them he said: Most of the words of peers should be wasted;
Because the words of the imams of al-Jarh and al-Ta’deel may be subject to a “rare mistake,” or they may come with “a sharp breath among those between them and him, grudges and sympathy.” In some of them, al-Dhahabi decided that the words of peers should be “contemplated and deliberated.” Or “to find a follower” or to prove to us that he is “in love and partisanship”, or for contemporaries to agree on hurting a sheikh, or “if it appears to you that it is due to enmity, doctrine or envy”, or if it is proven that there is competition between them, or passion;
Because "the one who stands out in the leadership and responds to those who oppose him is less than Uday."
It is possible to formulate the following criteria, which revolve around the fact that a person checks - when he is wounded - for evidence, according to the saying of the one who is wounded and whose justice and imam have been established in science:
The content of the wound itself, and the condition of the wound in terms of knowledge of the legal rulings;
An ignorant person may have thought that what is permissible is forbidden, but he was wronged by it.
Ibn Hajar said: “A group of pious people criticized a group who entered into the matter of the world, so they weakened them for that, and there is no effect of that weakness with truthfulness and accuracy.” Rather, there are those who “weakened some of the narrators with a matter in which the burden is on others, or for prejudice among peers, and more severe than that is the weakening of those The weakness of someone who is more trustworthy than him, higher in rank, or more knowledgeable in hadeeth. All of this is not taken into consideration.”
The state of beliefs and their differences between the wounded and the wounded.
That is why the Shafi’i jurist al-Rafi’i said: “And the purveyor should be free from resentment and fanaticism in the madhhab.” And al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: “A group of people who slandered a group because of their differences in beliefs should be aware of that and not count on it except with a right.”
And from that: the dispute between many Sufis and the people of hadith, or between the people of hadith and the people of opinion.
A number of scholars pointed out this, including Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid, al-Sabki, Ibn Hajar and others.
worldly rivalries;
Al-Subki said: “This is more in the latecomers than in the earlier ones.” Ibn Hajar made this an appendix other than the beliefs and called it “Competition in Mattresses.”
And Sheikh Al-Albani had been asked about the rule of accepting “the speech of peers with each other,” so he turned it into “contemporary” that causes personal hostility.
If, in later eras, there were those who challenged the narrator as well, then this removes the suspicion of hostility for personal reasons, and “it is likely that the appeal is not due to contemporaneity, but rather because the challenged deserves to be challenged.” Ages".
It is strange that Al-Albani represented this by what he claimed was "the agreement of the masses of hadith scholars on the weakness of Imam Abu Hanifa, may God have mercy on him." Rather, managing the issue - in its entirety - according to "contemporary" only is clearly a shortcoming and negligence!
This al-Dhahabi - for example - compiled a book that he dedicated to weak narrators, and he called it "Mizan al-I'tidal". I have it, but let it be known.”
His student Taj al-Din al-Subki praised this path, and therefore this condition must be taken into account when reading al-Dhahabi’s book.
However, al-Dhahabi said in the introduction to al-Mizan: “I do not mention in my book any of the imams who are followed in the branches, because of their majesty in Islam and their greatness in the souls, such as Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi’i and al-Bukhari. Since lying harms a person, for it is treason and a felony, and the Muslim person is normalized for everything, except for betrayal and lying.” Consider the work of the golden critic and the words of Al-Albani in Abu Hanifa, may God be pleased with him!
The talk of the peers about each other - as you can see - is a very complicated issue, but my previous article, which I devoted to the dispute between Al-Albani and Al-Tahhan, dragged me to it, because I found the words of the peers appropriate related to the topic, and in need of scientific editing to be a criterion for looking at the words of scholars about each other on the one hand, and to prove The overlapping of the scientific and moral aspects of our heritage on the other hand, and to show the superficiality of what prevails in some Western academies on the third hand.
They consider mere proximity to the subject of research incompatible with objectivity, and God knows best.